MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977087140 · doi:10.1080/15222055.2011.629946

Water Quality in Tilapia Transport: From the Farm to the Retail Store

2011· article· en· W1977087140 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Colt, Tracey S. Momoda, Rob Chitwood, Gary Fornshell, Carl B. Schreck

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Aquaculture · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWestern Regional Aquaculture CenterNational Institute of Food and AgricultureU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiologyTilapiaFisheryAgricultural economicsBusinessFish <Actinopterygii>Economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus are routinely transported 1,200–1,400 km from Idaho to live markets in the greater Vancouver, British Columbia, area. Direct hauling mortality is typically very low, but significant economic losses occur during retail holding owing to a deterioration in physical appearance that results in fish that cannot be sold and their subsequent mortality. To address this problem, information was collected on hauling systems and protocols, holding systems and water management protocols, and water quality in the retail holding systems. During hauling, fish are exposed to high levels of dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, and bacteria. The transfer of fish from hauling systems to retail holding systems can subject them to rapid changes in temperature, dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, and pH. Problem areas in retail holding include low water temperatures, high un-ionized ammonia concentrations, and elevated levels of gas supersaturation. Determination of the causes of high mortality in transportation and retail holding is difficult to clearly identify because of sampling difficulties and commercial restrictions; improvements in hauling protocols may depend on simulated hauling experiments followed by commercial verification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of AquacultureSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207