MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964786777 · doi:10.1080/19440049.2011.559279

Surveys of rice sold in Canada for aflatoxins, ochratoxin A and fumonisins

2011· article· en· W1964786777 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jai Bansal, Peter Pantazopoulos, James P. Tam, P. Cavlovic, Keri Kwong, A.-M. Turcotte, Benjamin P.‐Y. Lau, Peter Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Additives & Contaminants Part A · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthHealth Canada
FundersCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsOchratoxin AAflatoxinFumonisinMycotoxinFumonisin B1Food scienceDetection limitContaminationChemistryFood contaminantAnimal scienceBiologyVeterinary medicineChromatographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 200 samples of rice (including white, brown, red, black, basmati and jasmine, as well as wild rice) from several different countries, including the United States, Canada, Pakistan, India and Thailand, were analysed for aflatoxins, ochratoxin A (OTA) and fumonisins by separate liquid chromatographic methods in two different years. The mean concentrations for aflatoxin B(1) (AFB(1)) were 0.19 and 0.17 ng g(-1) with respective positive incidences of 56% and 43% (≥ the limit of detection (LOD) of 0.002 ng g(-1)). Twenty-three samples analysed in the second year also contained aflatoxin B(2) (AFB(2)) at levels ≥LOD of 0.002 ng g(-1). The five most contaminated samples in each year contained 1.44-7.14 ng AFB(1) g(-1) (year 1) and 1.45-3.48 ng AFB(1) g(-1) (year 2); they were mostly basmati rice from India and Pakistan and black and red rice from Thailand. The average concentrations of ochratoxin A (OTA) were 0.05 and 0.005 ng g(-1) in year 1 and year 2, respectively; incidences of samples containing ≥LOD of 0.05 ng g(-1) were 43% and 1%, respectively, in the 2 years. All positive OTA results were confirmed by LC-MS/MS. For fumonisins, concentrations of fumonisin B(1) (FB(1)) averaged 4.5 ng g(-1) in 15 positive samples (≥0.7 ng g(-1)) from year 1 (n = 99); fumonisin B(2) (FB(2)) and fumonisin B(3) (FB(3)) were also present (≥1 ng g(-1)). In the second year there was only one positive sample (14 ng g(-1) FB(1)) out of 100 analysed. All positive FB(1) results were confirmed by LC-MS/MS.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations86
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Additives & Contaminants Part ASame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207