MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060073141 · doi:10.4236/nr.2013.45051

River-Based Cage Aquaculture of Tilapia in Northern Thailand: Sustainability of Rearing and Business Practices

2013· article· en· W2060073141 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Phimphakan Lebel, Niwooti Whangchai, Chanagun Chitmanat, Jongkon Promya, Prachaub Chaibu, Patcharawalai Sriyasak, Louis Lebel

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Resources · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFish Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsAquacultureFisheryFishingStockingNile tilapiaTilapiaOreochromisSustainabilityBusinessFish farmingAgricultural scienceEnvironmental scienceFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cage-based aquaculture in rivers raises issues of natural resource management more familiar to fisheries management than does aquaculture in fish ponds on private land. Hybrid red and black Nile tilapias (Oreochromis niloticus L) are reared for 4 - 5 months in cages in the upper Ping River in northern Thailand. Observed mean stocking density was 49 ± 16 fish·m-3, feed conversion ratio 1.47 ± 0.43 kg feed per kg fish and yield density 26.6 ± 8.1 kg·m-3. Input costs were dominated by feed (70%) and stock (16%). Most farms borrowed money and participated in contracts. Fish farming was usually a component of a portfolio of household activities but for some a core business. To succeed fish farmers must manage a combination of market, climate and environmental-related risks. Cage-based aquaculture in rivers faces many challenges; further research on farm practices and vulnerabilities, river and water management, and the commodity-chain are needed.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
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 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

Citations27
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural ResourcesSame topicFish Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207