MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413178868 · doi:10.29103/aa.v12i2.21224

The effectiveness of Ovaprim with different concentrations on the duration of spawning and hatching power of goldfish eggs (Carassius auratus)

2025· article· en· W4413178868 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Rumondang, Muhammad Aidil Huda, Mutiaragusti Yeni

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Aquatica Aquatic Sciences Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquatic life and conservation
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHatchingCarassius auratusFisheryBiologyDuration (music)ZoologyAnimal scienceFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of Ovaprim at various concentrations on spawning time, fertilization rate, and egg hatchability of goldfish. This study uses an experimental method with a Completely Randomized Design (CRD) consisting of four treatments: P1 (control/0 ml/kg), P2 (0.2 ml/kg), P3 (0.3 ml/kg), and P4 (0.4 ml/kg)/of fish body weight. Each treatment was repeated three times. The observed parameters in this study include spawning time, fertilization rate, and egg hatchability. The obtained data were analyzed using ANOVA and followed by Duncan's multiple range test to determine significant differences between treatments. The research results show that the use of Ovaprim at different concentrations has a significant effect on spawning time, fertilization rate, and hatching rate. The 0.4 ml/kg dose provided the best results, with the fastest spawning time of 10 hours and 3 minutes, a fertilization rate of 88.67%, and the highest hatching rate, reaching 93.30%. Thus, a dose of 0.4 ml/kg is recommended as the optimal dose to improve the spawning efficiency of goldfish in aquaculture. Keywords: Carassius auratus; Hatchability; Ovaprim; Reproductive Hormone; Spawning

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Aquatica Aquatic Sciences JournalSame topicAquatic life and conservationFrench-language works237,207