Assessment of sous vide knowledge and inspection/cooking practices
Notice bibliographique
Résumé

 Background: In September 2014, BCCDC developed “Guidelines for Restaurant Sous Vide Cooking Safety in British Columbia” providing Environmental Health Officers (EHO) and sous vide cooking chefs safety knowledge about sous vide cooking. To assess whether the guidelines improved sous vide safety knowledge, a study was conducted to examine and compare knowledge differences between EHOs and chefs who had read the guidelines to those who had not read the guidelines. Methods: An online survey was created and advertised by publishing on the BCCDC website, in newsletters and magazines (Vancouver Costal Health newsletter, Fraser Health news Letter, Chefs Quarterly magazine), and through e-mail distribution lists to EHOs and chefs, including chefs at Vancouver Community College. The questions in this survey were developed based on the guide-lines. T-tests and Chi square analyses were conducted to assess knowledge difference between those who read the guidelines and those who did not. Results: A total of 65 people completed the survey, including 45 EHOs (69.3%), 15 chefs (23%), and 5 others (7.7%). EHOs who read the guidelines had significantly higher average knowledge scores in the multiple choice section of the sous vide safety knowledge survey (p=0.00028, t-test) when compared to EHOs who had never read the guidelines. No differences were found in the true and false section (p=0.43925, t-test). With regard to inspection practices, EHO who read the guide-lines were more likely to frequently check for the internal temperature of sous vide foods, water bath temperature, time/temperature in the recipes, calibration of thermometer and proper labels on sous vide pouched foods than EHOs who never read the guidelines. Chefs who read the guidelines had similar average score as chefs who never read the guidelines in T/F (p=0.79878, t-test) and multiple choice (p=0.97, t-test). With regard to cooking practice, chefs who read the guidelines were more likely to frequently calibrate thermometers than chefs who never read the guidelines. However, chefs who never read the guidelines were more likely to frequently find their sous vide pouch floating dur-ing the cooking process, to check for internal temperature of sous vide food, and to label their sous vide pouch properly. Conclusion: These results show that EHOs who have read the sous vide guidelines have better sous vide knowledge in comparison to EHOs who have never read the guidelines. They are also more likely to have overall better inspection practices. Nevertheless, results show chefs who read the guidelines have similar sous vide knowledge in comparison to chefs who never read the guidelines. In terms of cooking practices, these chefs are likely to have better cooking practices only in certain areas.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».