MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393003669 · doi:10.35508/aquatik.v6i1.9876

Pengaruh Kombinasi Air Kelapa Muda Dan Gliserol pada Presevasi Sperma Ikan Mas (Cyprinus carpio)

2023· article· id· W4393003669 on OpenAlexaff
Sisca Melantri Lodo, Agnette Tjendanawangi, Yulianus Linggi

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Aquatik · 2023
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquatic life and conservation
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh dari penambahan pengencer air kelapa muda dan gliserol terhadap viabilitas sperma ikan mas (Cyprinus carpio) dan perlakuan yang terbaik pada penyimpanan sperma ikan mas. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan di Laboratorium Fakultas Kelautan dan Perikanan Universitas Nusa Cendana, selama kurang lebih 1 bulan (Oktober) 2021. Metode penelitian disusun dalam rancangan acak lengkap (RAL) dengan 5 perlakuan yaitu perlakuan 1: 0,25 ml sperma + 100% air kelapa muda, perlakuan 2 : 0,25 ml sperma + 75% air kelapa muda + 25% gliserol, perlakuan 3: 0,25 ml sperma + 50% air kelapa muda + 50% gliserol. perlakuan 4: 0,25 ml sperma + 25% air kelapa muda + 75% gliserol dan perlakuan 5 : 0,25 ml sperma + 100% gliserol. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan penambahan air kelapa muda dan gliserol berpengaruh terhadap motilitas spermatozoa ikan mas (Cyprinus carpio) dan spermatozoa masih bertahan hidup selama 4 hari, namun semakin lama disimpan maka motilitas akan semakin menurun dan penyimpanan sperma dengan perbandingan dosis 75% air kelapa muda + 25% gliserol (perlakuan B) memberikan hasil terbaik. Kata Kunci: Air Kelapa Muda, Gliserol, Motilitas, Viabilitas, Sperma Ikan Mas

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal AquatikSame topicAquatic life and conservationFrench-language works237,207