MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005832876 · doi:10.6000/1927-520x.2020.09.02

Scanning and Transmission Electron-Microscopic Studies on the Lingual Tonsil of the Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis)

2020· article· en· W3005832876 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ibrahim Alhaji Girgiri, Pawan Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Buffalo Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBubalusBiologyTransmission (telecommunications)TonsilPalatine tonsilAnatomyComputer scienceImmunologyEcologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined lingual tonsil of six buffaloes of the local mixed breed by scanning and transmission electron-microscopy to elucidate their ultrastructural features. The lingual tonsil presented folded mucosa having longitudinally oriented folds which were separated by grooves. The surface mucosa showed a squamous arrangement of cells which delineated from the adjacent cells. The surface of these cells at a higher magnification presented the microplicae of different arrangements which were mainly of closed pattern type and resembled fingerprints of humans. The luminal openings of glandular ducts on the free surface presented varying shapes. The transmission electron-microscopy described ultrastructural details of the different strata of the stratified squamous keratinised, non-keratinised and reticular epithelia. The propria-submucosa contain reticular cells, fibroblast, lymphoid cells, plasma cells, granulocytes and interdigitating cells. Few high endothelial venules observed and the cytoplasmic process of these endothelial cells contained small vacuoles equivalent to vesiculo-vacuolar organelles, membrane-bound bodies and vacuolated structures.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Buffalo ScienceSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207