MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092188975 · doi:10.2495/sdp-v1-n2-192-202

Use of fishpond sediment for sustainable aquaculture—agriculture farming

2006· article· en· W2092188975 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
MM Rahman, Amararatne Yakupitiyage

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFisheries and Aquaculture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAsian Institute of TechnologyEuropean Commission
KeywordsAquacultureAgricultureIntegrated farmingSustainable agricultureEnvironmental scienceSedimentFisheryBusinessAgroforestryEnvironmental planningGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>Geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment was carried out in triplicate, in 1 1 m 2 plots using six treatments, viz. zero input control (S 0 N 0 P 0 K 0 ), fertilizer control (S 0 NPK), sediment 60 kg without fertilizer (S 60 N 0 P 0 K 0 ), sediment 60 kg with N and K (S 60 NP 0 K), sediment 120 kg without fertilizer (S 120 N 0 P 0 K 0 ) and sediment 120 kg with N and K (S 120 NP 0 K) to determine the potential of tilapia pond sediment to supply P to morning glory, and the effects on the soil aggregate stability and the bulk density. The application of 60 and 120 kg sediment plot -1 corresponds to 30% and 60% of the plot soil by weight, respectively. The study confirmed that the application of tilapia pond sediment at 30% to farm soils with supplementation of N and K, i.e. the treatment S 60 NP 0 K, provided the required amount of P to morning glory and gave fresh and dry matter yields of morning glory equal to the fertilizer control plot. Furthermore, the application of 30% sediment significantly improved the soil aggregate stability and decreased the bulk density of farm soils to favorable levels. This kind of integration would ensure long-term sustainability of both aquaculture and agriculture farming.

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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicFisheries and Aquaculture StudiesFrench-language works237,207