MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1602200843

친환경 유기양식 동향 및 유기양식자재 허용물질 설정 방향 연구

2014· article· ko· W1602200843 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
박노백, 명정인

Bibliographic record

Venue해양정책연구 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Quality and Safety Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquacultureEnvironmental scienceBusinessBiodegradable wasteOrganic productionFish <Actinopterygii>BiodiversityOrganic farmingEnvironmental protectionWaste managementFisheryEngineeringEcologyBiologyAgriculture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demands for organic fish have significantly increased since 2000, but total outputs of organic fish compared to non-organic ones still remain low due to the absence of standards for organic fish production, organic inputs and management plan. Accordingly, the issues of organic aquaculture are under discussion around the world, mostly by private organizations in Europe, Japan and Canada. The ultimate goal of organic aquaculture is to produce fishery products with minimizing the use of organic inputs and to meet public interests such as biodiversity in aquatic ecosystem and healthy aquatic environment. Nevertheless, only a few researches on the use of organic materials have been done up to now. Therefore, this study, which deals with the organic materials based on several organic aquaculture standards including IFOAM, CODEX, EU and OMRI, was performed to introduce organic materials to aquaculture in Korea. To sum up, it is desirable to divide the allowable organic materials into materials ① for feed ② for cleaning and disinfection of aquaculture facilities and equipments ③ for water treatment ④ for disease management.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue해양정책연구Same topicFood Quality and Safety StudiesFrench-language works237,207