Evaluation of growth performance and breeding habits of fighting fish (Betta splendens) under 3 diets and shelters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are various factors affecting the fighting fish larval survival including nutrition, substrate, water quality, pathogen and stress. Experiments were conducted to study the effect of substrate and live feed on larval survival of fighting fish fry. Nine small glass aquaria (60 cm × 30 cm × 30 cm) were used as breeding tanks. Equal pieces (80 cm2) of rigifoam (T1), polythene (T2) and banana leaf (T3) were placed on the tank surface to facilitate the male to form the bubble nest under it. Thirty days of feeding trial was conducted with three different live feeds (Artemia, Moina and Bread worm) as treatments with triplicates. The bubble nest area was significantly wider (p<0.05) under rigifoam (71.85±2.02 cm2) and polythene (32.45±1.36 cm2) than banana leaf (24.10±1.62 cm2). Survival of fry was significantly higher under banana leaves (96%) and rigifoam (95%) than polythene (94%). Feeding trial, final lengths of fry were 1.65, 1.23 and 1.07cm for Artemia, Bread worm and Moina respectively whereas final weights were 0.05, 0.03 and 0.02g.Better survival rates were observed among treatments with no significant difference (p>0.05).Water quality parameters recorded in different treatments during the experimental period were pH (7-7.5), temperature (26-28 0C), and dissolved oxygen (5mg/L).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".