MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076979038 · doi:10.5539/jas.v7n1p161

Suitability of Different Food Types for On-Feeding and Juvenile Production of European Grayling, Thymallus thymallus, under Intensive Farming Conditions

2014· article· en· W2076979038 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Franz Lahnsteiner, Manfred Kletzl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraylingZooplanktonBiologyJuvenileFisheryFish farmingAnimal scienceFish <Actinopterygii>Juvenile fishAquacultureEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study on-feeding and juvenile production of European grayling, Thymallus thymallus, was tested with a commercially available fry food for salmonids (FSS) and a specific self-made fry food containing zooplankton components (DFZO) under intensive farming conditions. Live zooplankton food was used as control. Rearing of grayling was not possible with FSS as in > 70% of the fish malformations manifested circa 30 days after on-feeding. Malformed fish had sharply bent tails and gas accumulations in the coelomic cavity and intestine. These alterations were reversible and compensated when fish were fed on a live zooplankton diet instead of FSS for 2 weeks. When grayling were fed with DFZO during the first 14 days and with FSS thereafter, survival rates 49 d after first feeding were 85 ± 3%, increase in total length was from 15.7 ± 0.9 mm (day of first feeding) to 27.1 ± 1.2 mm (day 49) and in weight from 20 ± 2 mg to 110 ± 13 mg. The percentage of malformed fish was < 0.5%. These viability parameters did not significantly differ from fish fed with live zooplankton food.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207