MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2391476803

Comparative analysis of main nutritive components in edible tissues of male and female Culter erythropterus

2012· article· en· W2391476803 on OpenAlexaff
Sun Zhi-jing

Bibliographic record

VenueNanfang shuichan · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive Peptides
Canadian institutionsL'Alliance Boviteq
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwim bladderAmino acidComposition (language)Significant differenceBiologyAromatic amino acidsFood scienceInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiochemistryFish <Actinopterygii>Medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared the nutritive components in the edible tissues of male and female Culter erythropterus.The results reveal that no significant difference is found in the content of crude protein in the muscle between male and female(P0.05),but the content of crude protein in gonads and air bladder is significantly higher in female(28.24%,19.22%) than in male(24.89%,17.72%)(P0.05);there is no significant difference in the content of moisture in the edible tissues between male and female(P 0.05).Eighteen amino acids were discovered in the edible tissues of both male and female.The contents of total amino acids,essential amino acids and flavour amino acids in the gonads and air bladder of female are significantly higher than those of male(P0.05),but there is no significant difference in amino acid composition in the muscle between male and female(P 0.05).The composition of essential amino acids in the gonads and air bladder of male and female C.erythropterus meets the standard of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/Word Health Organization(FAO/WHO),but that in the muscle does not.It is indicated that the muscle and the gonads of C.erythropterus are more nutritive,while the air bladder has relatively low nutritional value.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanfang shuichanSame topicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive PeptidesFrench-language works237,207