MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1611111318 · doi:10.22435/pgm.v0i0.2035

KADAR AFLATOXIN DALAM KACANG TANAH DAN HASIL OLAHANNYA

2012· article· en· W1611111318 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhilal Muhilal, Darwin Karyadi, Dradjat D. Prawiranegara

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood and Agricultural Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAflatoxinFood scienceChemistryHorticultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="Style6">Kadar aflatoxin dalam katjang tanah dan hasil olahnja (The aflatoxin contents of peanut and peanut products). Gizi Indonesia, 2: 162, 1970.</p> <p class="Style4">Samples of peanut and peanut products obtained in Bogor were analyzed for their contents of aflatoxin by the method of Pons and Goldblatt. The peanut products analyzed were peanut oil, peanut presscake, peanut butter and fermented peanut presscake.</p> <p class="Style4">Most of the aflatoxin found was of Bl type which is the most toxic. The aflatoxin contents of peanut bought from retai­lers (40 to 4100 ppb) were roughly 25 times the safe level desig­nated by the American and Canadian Food and Drug Admi­nistration.</p> <p class="Style4">It was noticel that the longer the time needed for peanuts to reach the consumer, the greater are the contents of aflatoxin.</p><p> </p><p>Kacang tanah merupakan bagian dari menu orang Indonesia. Ada berbagai bahan makanan yang memakai kacang tanah/hasil olahan kacang tanah sebagai bahan dasarnya, yang paling terkenal ialah oncom yang banyak terdapat di Jawa Barat. Mengingat kemungkinan bahaya yang bisa ditimbulkan aflatoxin, maka penelitian kadar aflatoxin pada kacang tanah dan hasil olahannya sangat penting terutama dari segi kesehatan masyarakat.</p>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicFood and Agricultural SciencesFrench-language works237,207