Palatability of Water Organisms for Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (Cichlidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The palatability of six species of aquatic animals and five species of plants for the Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus was evaluated. Aqueous extracts of most organisms (ten of 11 species) have an attractive taste, which corresponds to euryphagia and nutritional plasticity of the Nile tilapia. Despite phytophagia, the palatability of an animal extract is higher than that of plants. The low stimulating effect of the extract of the duckweed Lemna minor suggests the presence of natural taste deterrents in it. The extract of the Canadian waterweed Elodea canadensis, depending on the origin of the plant, either completely blocks consumption or has inert taste properties. Different parts of the water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes (leaves, roots) have a similar palatability. Repeated grasps manifested during orosensory testing of food are not typical for feeding behavior of the Nile tilapia. The results of the study indicate the ability of fish to subtly differentiate food organisms according to their taste qualities and emphasize the important role of taste reception in the choice of food objects by fish.
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 | 0.000 | 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".