MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pigmentation and Composition of Flesh of Atlantic Salmon Fed Diets Supplemented with the Yeast<i>Phaffia rhodozyma</i>

2001· article· en· W1994817770 on OpenAlexaff
John N. C. Whyte, Kathleen L. Sherry

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Aquaculture · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFleshBiologyYeastComposition (language)Food scienceFisheryZoologyBiochemistryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a pigmentation trial, Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in ocean pens were fed diets supplemented with the red yeast Phaffia rhodozyma, a control diet supplemented with synthetic astaxanthin, and a nonpigmented control diet. Yeast diets contained spray-dried untreated P. rhodozyma, heat-treated and spray-dried P. rhodozyma, and heat-treated and chemically treated spray-dried P. rhodozyma. Growth, weight, and fork length of all fish increased linearly with feeding and were not significantly different at the end of the study. Astaxanthin concentration in all pigmented fish increased linearly and ranged from 3.26 to 3.78 mg/kg after 150 d of feeding. Apart from the nonpigmented diet, astaxanthin concentration was not significantly different between fish fed the untreated or treated red yeast and those fed the synthetic astaxanthin diet (control). Assessment of astaxanthin isomers corroborated the assimilation of the (3R,3′R) isomer from all P. rhodozyma diets. Moisture, ash, and protein in all fish declined linearly with time, whereas lipid increased, but only during the first 30 d of feeding. Fatty acid profiles of all fish were virtually identical and independent of the source of pigment. No beneficial or adverse nutritional effects to the fish resulted from the use of modified red yeast.

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 score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of AquacultureSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207