MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313460179 · doi:10.4172/2155-9546.1000155

Growth, Reproduction and Sex Ratios in Oreochromis Andersonii (Castelnau, 1861) Fed with Varying Levels of 17α-Methyl Testosterone

2012· article· en· W2313460179 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kefi AS

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aquaculture Research & Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsReproductionBiologyTestosterone (patch)ZoologySexual reproductionEcologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three different doses (40, 60 and 90 mgMT/kg feed) of 17α-methyl testosterone (MT) were administered to Oreochromis andersonii.Growth, reproduction and sex ratios were evaluated.The fish raised on 60 mgMT/kg feed had the highest final mean weight and this was significantly different (P<0.05) from other hormone doses.Additionally, the 60 mgMT/kg fed fish had the lowest fecundity and reproductive effort.Histological examination of the gonads did not show any differences between the control and MT fed fish.The gross margin ratio (GMR) of the control group was the highest (P<0.05).The proportion of males in MT treated groups deviated significantly from the control group although the percentage of males obtained from the 40 mgMT/kg feed (93.4%) and 60 mgMT/kg feed (94.4%) fish was insignificant (P>0.05).Furthermore, the highest dose used produced a significantly lower (P<0.05)male proportion (79.3%) than the other treatments.The anabolic effect of androgen MT diminished over time.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aquaculture Research & DevelopmentSame topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic speciesFrench-language works237,207