MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Proximate composition and nutritional profile of by‐products from green urchin and Atlantic sea cucumber processing plants

2010· article· en· W1571233216 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Mamelona, Richard Saint‐Louis, Émilien Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEchinoderm biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersAgilent Technologies
KeywordsSea urchinSea cucumberFood sciencePolyunsaturated fatty acidBiologyProximateAmino acidFatty acidVitaminBotanyContext (archaeology)Composition (language)NutrientChemistryBiochemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Proximate composition, amino acid and fatty acid profiles, and mineral and vitamin contents of by‐products from Atlantic sea cucumber ( Cucumaria frondosa ) and green urchin ( Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis ) processing plants were investigated. Results showed that sea cucumber viscera, urchin digestive tract (UDT) and non‐commercial grade gonads contained 4.5–14.4% total proteins and 1.9–4.6% lipids (wet weight basis). They were rich in essential amino acids with values of about 36% of total amino acids. Samples were also rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids (44% of total fatty acids) and showed high content in EPA (∼17% of total fatty acids), but low DHA level (0.2%) was observed. In terms of vitamins content, UDT showed highest retinol and alpha‐tocopherol contents when compared to other marine samples. Results showed that by‐products from echinoderm processing plants contain various nutritious components with levels generally comparable even better than their edible counterparts, and efforts should be invested to valorise these biological wastes in a world context of rarefaction of nutritional marine resources.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicEchinoderm biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207