MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337838409 · doi:10.5376/ija.2015.05.0039

Growth and Survival Variations of <i>Penaeus monodon</i> from Six Breeding Families

2016· article· en· W2337838409 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yage Li, Shuguang Jiang, Jiajin Huang, Zhenhua Ma, Falin Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Aquaculture · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenaeus monodonBiologyShrimpSelective breedingFisheryAnimal scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The survival and growth of P. monodon from six breeding families were evaluated in this study. The morphometric traits, including the carapace length, carapace width, body length, telson length and body weight were measured throughout 108-days growth experiment. Ratios of the telson length and carapace width to body length, the length-weight relationship (LWR), condition factor (K), weight gained rate (WGR), specific weight rate (SWR), and survival of P. monodon were calculated. The testing traits were varied in selected breeding family. Length-weight relationships of family1 can be expressed as W = 0.0126BL 3.064 (R² = 0.9473) which had the biggest slope value (b). The equation W = 0.0563BL 2.417 (R² = 0.8318) belong to family2, while the slope value less than 3 indicates that the animal becomes slender as it increases in length. The order of the survival rate was family4 > family1 > family2 > family3 > family6 > family5.The order of the specific weight rate and weight gain rate was family6 > family4 > family2 > family5 > family3 > family1. In comparison of the condition factor between different families, the highest condition factor (1.57) was observed in the family5, and the lowest condition factor (1.40) was the family6. According to above indexes, rearing performance of family4 was the best in the tested breeding families in this study.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AquacultureSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207