Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Previous studies have been conducted to characterize and compare U.S. beef with beef from other countries; however, a comprehensive nationwide U.S. consumer study comparing USDA Choice and USDA Select beef to Canadian AAA and AA grades has not been conducted. The present study was conducted to compare consumer evaluations of U.S. and Canadian beef. Top loin, strip loins (IMPS 180, n = 338) were collected from numerous beef processing plants across Canada and the U.S. and were shipped to the Gordon W. Davis Texas Tech Meat Science Laboratory. All strip loins were aged 21 days and cut into 2.54 cm thick steaks for consumer sensory evaluation, WBS, and proximate analysis. Steaks were served to consumers (n = 642) in Baltimore, Maryland (n = 214), Phoenix, Arizona (n = 218), and Lubbock, Texas (n = 210). All steaks were cooked to a medium degree of doneness (71°C) on a George Foreman grill (George Foreman model GRP99A). Steaks were trimmed of all exterior fat and connective tissue before being fabricated into 1 cm2 samples. The samples were served to consumers in a cafeteria setting under normal light and room temperature. Consumers were asked to give their opinion considering overall like, tenderness like, juiciness like, flavor like, tenderness rating, juiciness rating, flavor rating and likelihood to buy for the first four samples. Consumers were served a fifth sample that was identified as Canadian beef and were asked to give an opinion of factors that affect purchasing in the store, Canadian quality, Canadian safety and what comments come to mind first when thinking of Canadian beef. Consumers could distinguish between marbling and grade levels of steaks. USDA Choice and Canada AAA were rated significantly better (P<0.05) than USDA Select and Canada AA by consumers for all sensory attributes. LSMEANS analysis of likelihood to buy indicated a significant preference (P < 0.05) to buy strip loin steaks of higher quality. USDA Select and Canada AA were less desirable to consumers. Consumers answered four questions based on the knowledge that the fifth sample was Canadian beef. Consumer responses to the fifth sample indicated most consumers make most choices at the meat counter based on the type of cut (38.2%) followed by the appearance of the meat in the package (25.98%). Canadian beef quality was rated "good" by most consumers’ (41%). Canadian beef safety was rated very good or good by most consumers (39.05% and 38.37%). Results from this nationwide consumer study, showed no significant differences between similar grades of beef (i.e. USDA Choice versus. Canada AAA and USDA Select versus. Canada AA) but consumers indicated a preference for higher quality grade beef.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».