MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098821371 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v7n5p57

Techno-economic Analysis (TEA) of Extruded Aquafeeds

2018· article· en· W2098821371 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rashid Suleiman, Kurt A. Rosentrater

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIowa State UniversityOhio State University
KeywordsAquacultureProduction (economics)BusinessOverexploitationCapital costRaw materialIncentiveEnvironmental scienceAgricultural scienceFisheryNatural resource economicsAgricultural economicsEconomicsFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The worldwide decline and overexploitation of ocean fisheries stocks had provided an incentive for the rapid growth of aquaculture. The aquaculture industry has been recognized as the fastest-growing food production system globally, with a 10% increase in production per year and is one of the most reliable and sustainable growth markets for manufactured feeds. Extrusion technology has been extensively used in the modern aquatic feed manufacturing, due to nutritional, physical properties improvements and cost effectiveness of feeds. Cost related to aquatic feed remains the biggest challenge, especially for small-scale producers. In order to understand costs and potential breakeven points, a single screw extruder and three different production scenarios (0.2, 2 and 20 t/day) throughput were used to develop techno-economic models for small-scale producers of extruded aquatic feeds. The results show annualized capital costs decreased as production capacity increased. Thus, aquatic feed producers could use this tool to evaluate annual costs and benefits to determine processing economics. Producers will have to consider the ingredients used, though, as raw ingredients constitute the greatest cost for the production of feeds.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207