Evaluación del semen canino, sometido a congelación con diferentes concentraciones de glicerol como crioprotector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of biotechnology used in canines for reproductive purposes, is a of the principal research study points to\nthe area of Veterinary Medicine in last years28. In the objective to evaluate the effect of three different concentrations\nof glycerol on canine semen, to subjected cryo-preservation process, were obtained using manual manipulation, 12\nsemen samples of male Labrador clinically healthy and subject to the same driving conditions. Each sample was\ndivided in four treatments (T1: control, T2: 4%, T3: T4 6% and 8% glycerol), to which they evaluated the volume,\npH, motility, concentration, morphology and vitality, respectively. Then in the analysis were determined after thawing\nseminal differences and its relationship to the concentration of cryoprotectant. From the results obtained in this\nproject are significant differences between the variables morphology, mortality and concentration, also established\nthat T2 (4% glycerol) and T3 (6% glycerol) provide better results for freezing semen canines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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".