MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313331997 · doi:10.1111/raq.12780

Mineral nutrition in penaeid shrimp

2022· article· en· W4313331997 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Aquaculture · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Northwest Territories
FundersCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsShrimpPenaeus monodonPenaeidaePenaeusAquacultureFisheryBiologyCrustaceanShrimp farmingDecapodaFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This review summarises the current knowledge of mineral nutrition for penaeid shrimp. It investigates how the aquatic environment and the lifecycle of shrimp affect requirements and the role that minerals play in shrimp health. Methods of supplying minerals via either water or to feed, and novel ways of supplementing minerals within feed, are discussed. The requirements for individual minerals are summarised with recommendations for minimum levels of dietary inclusion for semi‐intensive and intensive commercial shrimp culture presented where data permits. Estimates of dietary requirement remain broad for most minerals for the main shrimp production species ( Penaeus vannamei , Penaeus monodon and Penaeus japonicus ), with some essential minerals remaining unstudied (Table 2 in Section 5.10). Mineral nutrition will become more important as intensification and diversification of production systems provide new challenges to shrimp aquaculture.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.229 · 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