MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

COLOR DEVELOPMENT DURING NATURAL FERMENTATION AND CHEMICAL ACIDIFICATION OF SALAMI‐TYPE PRODUCTS

2010· article· en· W1660882310 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Muscle Foods · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsLactic acidFermentationChemistryFood scienceCitric acidLactic acid fermentationMoistureBacteriaOrganic chemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The impact of using natural fermentation with lactic acid bacteria (LAB), chemical acidification with liquid lactic acid, and encapsulated citric, gluconic or lactic acid were evaluated in raw and cooked salami‐type products. Liquid lactic acid resulted in an immediate pH drop and significant increase in L* (lightness) and a* (redness) values, as well as clumping of the ground meat particles that exhibited moisture release due to excessive protein denaturation. Overnight LAB fermentation also resulted in increased L* and a* values, but unlike direct acid addition, did not cause moisture loss or clumping. Spectra data, collected after both treatments reached pH 4.6, revealed pretty similar curve shape, with higher values for the fermented product at 420–550 nm and 610–670 nm. The encapsulated acids, designed to release acid at about 62C, did not affect the color of the raw meat batters. Cooking of all treatments resulted in higher L* and a* values, both by about 50%. L* and a* values were pretty similar for all the acidified and non‐acidified control. The only exception was a no‐nitrite control, which showed a significantly ( P < 0.05) lower a* value. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS The use of different acidification methods to lower the pH of meat products (bacteria fermentation, direct acid addition, encapsulated acid) does affect the color of the product. When going through the process, care should be given to the rate of acidification. A slow acid production (fermentation) or acid release when the meat proteins have started to go through heat coagulation (by using acid encapsulated in hydrogenated vegetable oil) are recommended. Direct acid addition results in immediate lightening of the product as well as crumbling of the ground meat particles, which later negatively affect color and texture of the product.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.223 · 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