MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782931329 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v10n2p95

Economic Contribution in the Management of Solid Waste Policy Processing Water on Improvement of Fish Processing Revenues

2018· article· en· W2782931329 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marnis, Syahrul Syahrul, Fitri, Rovanita Rama

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquatic life and conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFish processingCatfishBusinessRaw materialCommercial fish feedFish mealPangasiusFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Agricultural scienceWaste managementEnvironmental scienceAquacultureEngineeringBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to analyze the economic contribution in the environmental management of solid waste processing of catfish to increase income of fish processing in Koto village Kampar regency Riau.The research method used is the method of exploitation of solid waste processing and case studies with respondents processing catfish (fillet fish, salai and salted fish). Data were collected using questionnaires on business actors, and solid waste processing trials (meat waste, fish head, fish bone, belly fat and edible offal or stomach). The waste is processed into raw material for food and feed industries that meet the quality standard of Indonesian National Standard (SNI) and calculated its economic value include business analysis (Gross Benefit Cost Ratio), Profitabilty Ratio, and IRR and environmental management scenario of catfish fish industry. The data obtained will be homogenized data and then tabulated and analyzed descriptively quantitative.The results showed that the net production technology capable of producing industrial raw materials in the form of fish meal (fish protein concentrate (KPI), fish oil, bone meal and fish skin chips with the Indonesian National Standard.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.248
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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicAquatic life and conservationFrench-language works237,207