MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085432213 · doi:10.5539/jas.v5n4p26

Optimization of Water Circulation Period for the Culture of Goldfish with Spinach in Aquaponic System

2013· article· en· W2085432213 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amruta Shete, Ajit Kumar Verma, Ritesh Shantilal Tandel, V. K. Tiwari, Tanveer Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInnovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquaponicsAnimal scienceFish <Actinopterygii>SpinachWater circulationWater qualityBiologyFisheryAquacultureEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations45
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicInnovations in Aquaponics and Hydroponics SystemsFrench-language works237,207