Productivity of Cultivating Silk Worms (<i>Tubifex</i> sp.) in a Tray System Using Different Doses in The Maintenance Media at Bpbat Mandiangin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of this aquaculture effort is determined through a handful of activity segments which are the key to the success of an effort to cultivate fish. One natural food that has high nutritional content is silk worms. Silk worms ( Tubifex sp.) are a natural food that is widely used as fish food. The aim is to determine productivity, biomass and increase in worm population. The methods used in this activity are primary data collection, secondary data collection and documentation. The treatments given were treatments A and B, namely in the treatment of probiotics and 10% molasses with a media height of 5 cm and in treatment B probiotics and 20% molasses with a media height of 4 cm. The stages of implementing the activities included preparing containers, preparing culture media, spreading silk worms ( Tubifex sp.), maintenance and harvesting of silk worms. The test parameters observed included absolute biomass, population increase and productivity. The results of the research showed that silk worm productivity, absolute biomass and silk worm population increase with the tray system with different doses in the highest media was in treatment A with a productivity value of 3.8 kg/m 2 , total biomass 164 grams and population increase of 138 720 ind/m 2 .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".