MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Digestibilidade aparente de dietas práticas com diferentes relações energia: proteína em juvenis de pirarucu

2008· article· pt· W1997120517 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eduardo Akifumi Ono, Érica da Silva Santiago Nunes, Jimmy Carlos Campos Cedano, Manoel Pereira Filho, Rodrigo Roubach

Bibliographic record

VenuePesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira · 2008
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceEnergy densityBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O objetivo deste trabalho foi determinar a digestibilidade aparente de nutrientes e energia de dietas para juvenis de pirarucu, Arapaima gigas. Foram testadas oito dietas, contendo quatro relações energia:proteína (11, 10,1, 9, 8 kcal energia digestível por grama de proteína bruta) e duas fontes de energia não-protéica (óleo de soja e gordura de aves), em esquema fatorial 4x2, com três repetições. Foram estocados 240 juvenis de pirarucu com peso de 96,8±2,3 g, distribuídos em 24 tanques cilíndricos com fundo cônico, adaptados para a coleta de fezes (sistema Guelph modificado). Os peixes foram alimentados duas vezes ao dia até a saciedade aparente com as dietas experimentais contendo 0,5% de óxido de cromo, como marcador inerte para determinação dos coeficientes de digestibilidade aparente. As dietas com a relação energia:proteína de 9 kcal energia digestível por grama de proteína bruta apresentaram os menores coeficientes de digestibilidade aparente da matéria seca, proteína bruta e extrativo não nitrogenado. O maior coeficiente de digestibilidade aparente da gordura foi obtido com o uso do óleo de soja. A relação energia:proteína na dieta influencia os coeficientes de digestibilidade aparente dos macronutrientes e energia no pirarucu.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePesquisa Agropecuária BrasileiraSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207