MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963544807 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v1n2p274

Behavior of Brucella abortus and Brucella melitensis in Raw Meatball (Cig Kofte)

2012· article· en· W1963544807 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Recep Kara, Veli Gök, Beytullah Kenar, Levent Akkaya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrucella melitensisBrucella abortusPopulationBrucellaFood scienceRaw milkAgarMicrobiologyBiologyChemistryBrucellosisBacteriaMedicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, we aimed to determine the survival and reproducibility of the said pathogenic microorganisms during the storage period (24 h) of raw meatball samples contaminated with reference strains of Brucella abortus and Brucella melitensis at levels of 104 and 106 cfu/g. Brucella abortus (NCTC 11363) and Brucella melitensis (NCTC 10094) strains were incubated in sterile full-cream milk with 12 % fat at 37°C for 48 hours under a 6% CO2 aerobic atmosphere. Subsequent to the incubation, culture counts were performed on Brucella Agar Base using tryptose soy broth. As a result during our analysis at the 12th hour of the storage, it was noted that while pH remained 5.2, aw 0.96 and moisture %52.16, population of B. abortus in-group A2 rose from 104 cfu/gr to 105 cfu/gr (P<0.05). At hour 24, pH was found 5.1, aw 0.92 and moisture % 49.07 whereas population of B. abortus decreased to 105 cfu/gr in-group A1 and to 104 cfu/gr in-group A2 (P<0.05). In-group B1, there was no change in the number of B. melitensis. It was also observed at hour 24 population of B. melitensis in-group B2 increased to 105 cfu/gr (P<0.05).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.301
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatmentFrench-language works237,207