MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Feeding Stimulant for Juvenile Winter Flounders

2000· article· en· W2038686402 on OpenAlexaff
Melanie Fredette, John Batt, John D. Castell

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Aquaculture · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyJuvenileAnimal sciencePleuronectesFeed conversion ratioFlounderWinter flounderMealWeight gainAquacultureFisheryFish mealJuvenile fishStimulantBody weightFish <Actinopterygii>Food scienceEcologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feeding stimulants, commonly amino acids, are incorporated into fish diets to enhance feed intake. Winter flounder Pleuronectes americanus is a finfish species new to aquaculture; determining the best feeding stimulant for this species will help the industry increase feed consumption and growth and reduce feed conversion rates (weight of food fed/weight gained). FinnStim, a commercial feeding stimulant, was tested. Over a single adaptation week and two experimental weeks, juvenile 1-year-old winter flounder were fed daily to satiation either the control diet (99% basal diet and 1% fish meal) or the experimental diet (99% basal and 1% FinnStim). Fish were weighed at the beginning and at the end of a 2-week experimental feeding period, and feed consumption was monitored daily. The FinnStim supplemented diet resulted in a significantly (P < 0.05) enhanced feed consumption and growth rate compared with fish fed the control diet. A similar positive response to FinnStim was also found for feed efficiency (weight gained/weight of food consumed; P < 0.10) of winter flounder. The results suggest that FinnStim is an effective feeding stimulant for juvenile winter flounder at 1% supplementation level.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations19
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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