MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907135224 · doi:10.3126/on.v16i1.21569

Relative condition factor, length-weight relationship and sex ratio of copper mahseer, Neolissochilus hexagonolepis (McClelland, 1839) from Tamor River, Nepal

2018· article· en· W2907135224 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Suren Subba, Bharat Raj Subba, Vinod Kumar Mahaseth

Bibliographic record

VenueOur Nature · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFish Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal Roads University
KeywordsSex ratioFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyAnimal scienceBody weightVeterinary medicineFisheryDemographyMedicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present investigation was carried out for establishing the length weight relationship and to enumerate the relative condition factor and the sex ratio of Neolissochilus hexagonolepis from Tamor River, Nepal. Altogether 198 fishes were investigated from December 2014 till the end of November 2016. The sex ratio of the fish was found to be in the ratio of 1:1.2 with female dominating the catch for most parts of the year. Analysis of t-test showed a highly significant relationship (p˂0.05) between length and weight for male, female and sexes pooled. The fish was found to show isometric growth pattern with exponential value (b) equal to 2.962 for sexes pooled. The mean value of Fulton's condition factor (K) for sexes pooled was found to be 1.29 ± 0.49 giving the indication that the general well being of the fish was good. Sudden increase in the value of relative condition factor (Kn) in the size group 30-33 cm in male and 42-45 cm in female indicated their length range during which they showed the sign of maturation for the first time. Steep fall in the value of 'Kn' in size groups 33-36 cm onwards in male and 45-48 cm in female indicated their length range at spent phase.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOur NatureSame topicFish Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207