Optimization of Water Circulation Period for the Culture of Goldfish with Spinach in Aquaponic System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiment with varied water circulation periods having 4, 8, 12, and 24 hrs/day as T1, T2, T3 and T4, respectively in aquaponics, evaluated against a control (without aquaponics) revealed higher fish and plant growth in T3 and T4. The mean growth of fish varied significantly among treatments showing higher growth in T4 and control followed by T3, T2 and T1. Survival rate was 100% in all the treatments as well as control. Percentage weight gain, SGR (% day-1) also showed the similar trend as that of growth showing T4 as better treatment immediately followed by T3 then T2 and T1. The system maintained favourable water quality throughout the experiment. The growth in T3 and T4 did not vary significantly and was higher than the T1, T2 and control. Also percentage length gain at the end of the trial was maximum in T3 and T4. The Chl (a+b) content in the control was higher than all the treatments whereas, T4 showed the maximum concentration among treatments followed by T3, T2 and then T1. Comparison of all the growth attributes and water quality parameters indicated that water circulation can be reduced to 12 hrs/day for economically effective aquaponics and can be considered as optimum water circulation period for goldfish production in aquaponic system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".