Оценка воспроизводительной способности быков германского и канадского происхождения
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to make a comparative assessment of reproductive qualities of imported 6 bulls with the highest category of improvers. East productive capacity of bulls were compared on the basis of the following indicators: the number of inseminated heads of all of them fruitfully Osem-United from 1st insemination of animals, the number of inseminations on 1 fruitful, the percentage of abortions and stillborn offspring, the number of viable birth degenerate and heifers gobies. The genetic potential for milk production of Canadian bulls were significantly higher than the German. Thus, it was found that the average sperm production German bulls la possessing better fertilizing capacity than the Canadian (cows fertilization rate of the first insemination was above 3.4, the heifers 16.3%). Significantly better fertilizing ability, as in cows (74.8%), and in heifers (100%), had a bull Rondo 62151302 German origin, giving a relatively high productivity daughters when assessing the quality of offspring (7056 kg milk). At the same time, the use of sperm Canadian bulls were no cases of stillbirth offspring, and the percentage of abortions was below average (1.2%) than from the German bulls. The highest abortion rate was observed from insemination of sperm s bull of California 463324 7.3%, 5.2% of stillbirths from Inspiratory10831435. By analyzing the resulting offspring, found that the majority of manufacturers were born more than steers and heifers less. The only exceptions were two bulls of German origin: Inspiratory10831435 and Martel 61844301, whose percentage was born heifers, respectively 52 and 51. The Canadian bulls heifers output was the same 45%. In the aggregate indicators of reproductive ability of bulls and on-on followed by their potential for milk production cum-Canadian production has been recognized as the best.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".