MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414690104 · doi:10.3390/fishes10100490

Effect of Shading Ratio on Japanese Sea Bass (Lateolabrax japonicus) and Asian Sea Bass (Lates calcarifer) Aquaculture

2025· article· en· W4414690104 on OpenAlexaff
Yao-Chen Lee, I-Pei Kuo, Shuenn-Der Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueFishes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadingSea bassAquacultureWater qualityNutrientMilkfishBass (fish)Sea surface temperature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Floating photovoltaic arrays on ponds may alter thermal and optical conditions that are relevant to aquaculture performance. This study compared 0% and 40% surface shading in two outdoor earthen-pond trials, one with Asian sea bass (Lates calcarifer) and one with Japanese sea bass (Lateolabrax japonicus). Temperature was logged hourly and summarized as daily means; water quality was sampled biweekly; fish were measured repeatedly, with endpoint growth compared within species. The result shows that shading lowered pond temperature and the diurnal temperature range and reduced the number of days above species benchmark temperatures. Indicators associated with phytoplankton, including suspended solids and chlorophyll a, were lower under shading, whereas dissolved inorganic nutrients were higher. In the Japanese sea bass trial, dissolved oxygen was higher without shading. Final body weight did not differ between treatments within either trial, but survival was higher with 40% shading. Principal component analysis and permutational multivariate analysis of variance indicated a treatment signal in multivariate water quality. Because the trials occurred in different years with one pond per treatment, inference was restricted to contrasts within each species. Overall, moderate surface shading cooled ponds and altered water quality without reducing growth.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 venueFishesSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207