MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

COMPUTER-ASSISTED SPERM ANALYSIS OF SPERM MOTILITY DYNAMICS IN GAGA ROOSTERS AT DIFFERENT AGES

2025· article· en· W4415184963 on OpenAlexaff
Khaeruddin Khaeruddin, Junaedi Junaedi, Wiwied Sawitri

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Kedokteran Hewan - Indonesian Journal of Veterinary Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsArtificial Insemination Center of Quebec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoosterSpermSemenSperm motilitySemen qualityKinematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to evaluate the motility and kinematic parameters of Gaga chicken sperm at different ages using Computer-Assisted Sperm Analysis (CASA). Semen samples were collected seven times each from two roosters aged 6 months (young) and 12 months (mature) using the massage method. CASA evaluation assessed multiple parameters total motility, progressive motility, slow, static, distance average path (DAP), distance straight line(DSL), distance curvilinear (DCL), velocity average path (VAP), velocity straight line (VSL), velocity curvilinear (VCL), straightness (STR), linearity (LIN), amplitude of lateral head displacement (ALH), beat cross frequency (BCF), and wobble (WOB). Data were analyzed using an independent samples t-test. The results showed significant differences (P0.05) in progressive motility, DCL, VAP, and VCL between the two age groups, with the 12-month-old rooster showing higher values compared to the 6-month-old. In conclusion, the significantly higher sperm concentration and viability observed in mature roosters in this study underscore the importance of age-related reproductive maturity in optimizing semen quality for breeding purposes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Kedokteran Hewan - Indonesian Journal of Veterinary Sciences→Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→