and its Evaluation for Permanent Mounting of Small
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: : Permanent slide preparation of nematodes especially small ones is time consuming, difficult and they become scarious margins. Regarding this problem, a modified double glass mounting method was developed and com-pared with classic method. Methods: A total of 209 nematode samples from human and animal origin were fixed and stained with Formaldehyde Alcohol Azocarmine Lactophenol (FAAL) followed by double glass mounting and classic dehydration method us-ing Canada balsam as their mounting media. The slides were evaluated in differ-ent dates and times, more than four years. Different photos were made with dif-ferent magnification during the evaluation time. Results: The double glass mounting method was stable during this time and comparable with classic method. There were no changes in morphologic struc-tures of nematodes using double glass mounting method with well-defined and clear differentiation between different organs of nematodes in this method. Conclusion: Using this method is cost effective and fast for mounting of small nematodes comparing to classic method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".