Adaptación y rendimiento de plantas autóctonas de Guatemala en un sistema acuapónico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Se determinó la adaptación y rendimiento de ocho variedades de plantas autóctonas de Guatemala en un sistema acuapónico. Se utilizaron siete módulos acuapónicos, con capacidad de 80 plantas y 25 organismos de tilapia nilótica (Oreochromis niloticus). Se incluyeron en el estudio, plantas de apazote (Dysphania ambrosioides), makuy (Solanum nigrescens), amarantos (Amaranthus sp.), bledo (A. cruentus), chipilín (Crotalaria longirostrata), chipilín montés (C. vitellina) ayote (Cucurbita argyrosperma) y gí¼icoy (C. pepo). El periodo de evaluación fue de 60 días. Se registró la supervivencia (S), tamaño (T), peso (P) y biomasa o rendimiento (B) de las plantas y los peces al inicio y al final del periodo experimental. Se observó adaptación de siete de las ocho especies de plantas autóctonas, a los módulos acuapónicos experimentales. La variedad de planta con mayor crecimiento fue el ayote, seguida del makuy y el gí¼icoy. Se observaron diferencias en la altura (p=0.00001) y el rendimiento (p=0.00001) de las variedades de las plantas. La biomasa de tilapia por tanque fue _ = 730 ± 75.2 g. En tal sentido, es posible cultivar plantas autóctonas de Guatemala en un sistema acuapónico.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".