The enlargement of painted spiny lobster (<i>Panulirus versicolor</i>) uses different feed ingredients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development of lobster cultivation activities in Muna regency relatively not optimal. Availability of feed is be expected to be an obstacle in the development of lobster cultivation. This Research aims to determine the effect of feed ingredients on growth and survival of spiny lobster (Panulirus versicolor). The Research was conducted in December 2017 to March 2018, located in Bahari Village, Towea District, Muna Regency, Southeast Sulawesi Province using a randomized block design with three levels of feed ingredients treatment namely treatment A = blood clam meat, treatment B = white shrimp and treatment C = trash fish. The results showed that the highest specific growth rate was obtained in treatment A which was 1.69 ± 0.09 %/day, then treatment C (1.13±0.09 %/day), and the in lowest treatment B (1.09±0,06 %/day). The highest absolute growth was obtained in treatment A of 606.67 ± 15,28 g/individual then treatment C was 336.67±15,28 g/individual and the lowest was in treatment B of 300.00±10.00 g/individual. Survival of sea lobster is 100% in all three treatments. Analysis of variance at the 95% confidence level (α0.05) showed that different feed ingredients had a significantly different effect on the daily growth rate, and the absolute growth of sea lobsters (P. versicolor).
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) | 0.002 | 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".