MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346925708 · doi:10.1080/13657305.2016.1155961

Economic values of supply chain productivity and quality traits calculated for a farmed European whitefish breeding program

2016· article· en· W2346925708 on OpenAlexaff
Markus Kankainen, Jari Setälä, Antti Kause, Cheryl Quinton, Susanna Airaksinen, Juha Koskela

Bibliographic record

VenueAquaculture Economics & Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityFish farmingAquacultureSupply chainQuality (philosophy)BiologyAffect (linguistics)AgricultureBusinessBiotechnologyFisheryEconomicsEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>MarketingEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Economic values of different fish traits are needed to direct breeding programs to optimize economic benefits for aquaculture industry. The aim of this article is to highlight and calculate how different traits affect the value of farmed fish supply chain. Supply chain approach is needed to calculate economic impact of fish traits because several fish traits affect costs and returns not only in fish farming but also at the processing and retail level. In this article, economic values are calculated for 14 productivity and product quality traits in European whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus). Productivity affecting traits, such as growth, mortality and different yields, are included in the study. In addition, economic values are calculated for several quality traits like fillet gaping, appearance and fat content of flesh.Productivity traits had the highest economic importance if the traits could be improved. However, quality traits may cause even higher economic losses, if the quality decreases. Thus, the management of the breeding program should pay simultaneous attention to both quality and productivity traits.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquaculture Economics & ManagementSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207