Comparative efficacy of different diluents on liquid preservation of boar semen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was carried out to find the effect ofdifferent extenders on preservation of boar semen in liquid condition. Ejaculates (60-15 each from 4 Hampshire boars) were collected twice weekly using dummy sow. The ejaculates having more than 80% initial progressive motility were diluted in 4 different extenders, viz. Belts Ville thawing solution (BTS) Modena, Zomobsa and Guelph/Kiev. The diluted semen was preserved at 18°C up to 96 h. The average sperm motility was 48.08, 43.83,40.56 and 33.41 %, respectively, in BTS, Modena, Zomobsa and Guelph after 96 h of preservation. While live percentage, acrosomal integrity and hypo-osmotic swollen spermatozoa were 53.45, 55.47 and 25.60%, respectively, in BTS; 49.46, 50.06 and 20.56% in Modena; 43.21,44.63 and 19.85% in Zornobsa; and 37.40,40.52 and 19.53% in Guelph extender after 96 h of preservation at 18°C. There was no significant difference observed between BTS and Modena as well as between Zornobsa and Guelph extenders. The results concluded that BTS and Modena are better extenders than Zornobsa and Guelph in terms of motility, viability, acrosomal integrity and hypo-osmotic swollen spermatozoa for liquid preservation of boar semen.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".