MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DIGESTIBILIDADE APARENTE DA CASCA DE SOJA E DA POLPA CÍTRICA PARA JUVENIS DE PACU (PIARACTUS MESOPOTAMICUS) UTILIZANDO DOIS MARCADORES EXTERNOS

2008· article· pt· W2757366922 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian Taibo Timpone, João Batista Kochenborger Fernandes, Marianne Schorer, Thiago Perez El Hadi Fabregat

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Acadêmica Ciência Animal · 2008
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPiaractus mesopotamicusPacuBiologyAnimal scienceHorticultureChemistryFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a digestibilidade aparente da casca de soja e da polpa cítrica utilizando a cinza ácida insolúvel e o óxido de cromo como marcadores externos em ensaios com juvenis de pacu (Piaractus mesopotamicus). Foram utilizados 150 peixes, com peso médio de 63,07±9,0 gramas, distribuídos em 15 aquários (10 peixes/aquário) com capacidade de 75 L de água. Foram realizados dois ensaios de digestibilidade: no primeiro ensaio foram estudados os coeficientes de digestibilidade aparente dos nutrientes da polpa cítrica e no segundo da casca de soja. Os coeficientes foram determinados pelo método de coleta parcial de excretas e foi avaliada a adição na dieta de 0,5 e 1% de cinza insolúvel em ácido (Celite™) e 1% de óxido de cromo (Cr2O3) como marcadores inertes. As coletas de fezes foram realizadas utilizando-se seis coletores cilíndricos de fundo cônico (sistema de Guelph modificado). De acordo com a análise estatística não houve diferença significativa entre os marcadores nas rações com a inclusão da polpa cítrica e da casca de soja, indicando que ambos os marcadores são apropriados para a determinação da digestibilidade aparente de ingredientes para o pacu.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Acadêmica Ciência AnimalSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207