Characterization of bluefish baits (keeled mullet, leaping mullet, and sardine) in regard to biochemical and physical properties: bait preference of bluefish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fishing industry needs alternative baits that are not based on resources available for human consumption. In order to develop artificial baits, first the preferred baits should be determined, and then their biochemical and physiological composition should be identified. The aim of this study was to determine bluefish bait preferences and reveal the biochemical composition and physical characteristics of the preferred baits. In this study, keeled mullet, leaping mullet, and sardine species were found to have the highest catch, respectively. The highest texture hardness and whiteness colour values were found in keeled mullet, which had the highest catch efficiency for bluefish fishing. The highest palmitoleic acid content was found in keeled mullet at 25.86% (16.93% in leaping mullet and 17.05% in sardine). However, the highest PUFA content was found in sardine (15.56%), followed by leaping mullet (13.97%), and then keeled mullet (11.32%). As for the amino acid compositions, it was determined that glutamic acid and serine content, which are known to have positive effects on feed intake, were higher in keeled mullet. In regard to volatile components, mullet species were especially rich in total alcohol, aldehyde, ketone, and amines, while sardines were rich in hydrocarbons and furans. Hexanal and heptanal compounds, known as fish aroma, were determined at high rates in keeled mullet. It can be concluded that these components may be attractive to bluefish. The data presented in this study may be useful for the production of artificial bait.
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 | 0.001 | 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".