MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392554644 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i3.2242

Effect Of Dietary Supplementation Of Biofloc Meal With Tryptophan &Lysine On Growth And Survival Of Mono Sex Tilpa

2023· article· en· W4392554644 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mukesh Raghav, Rekha Shrivastava, Vipin Vyas, Ratnakar Mishra, Saugat Sasmal, Manisha Khaparde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTryptophanLysineMealFood scienceDietary proteinChemistryInternal medicineBiologyEndocrinologyBiochemistryMedicineAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 60-day indoor growth trial was conducted to study the effect of dietary supplementation of biofloc meal with tryptophan and lysine on growth and survival of mono sex tilapia. Six isonitrogenous and isoenergetic experimental diets wereformulated viz., as 0.2%, 0.3%, 0.4% tryptophan (D1,D2,D3) and 1.2%, 1.4%, 1.8% lysine(D4,D5,D6) enriched with 20%bioflocmeal included diets.This feeding trial was conducted in 18 numbers of 40 L plastic troughs in triplicates, utilizing mono sex tilapias weighing with an average of 2 g size. During the experimental period, water quality parameters were measured and recorded daily. Among the experimental diets highest mean body weight of tilapia were recorded in D4 (46.35±3.95g) followed by D2 (41.37±1.98g), D5 (40.1±0.87 g) and D1 (34.36±0.96 g). Hence, the present study was assessed that diet with 20% biofloc meal supplemented with 1.2 % lysine can improve the growth and survival of mono sex tilapia without any adverse effect on the fish performance

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207