MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969872915 · doi:10.1007/s11746-007-1053-5

Industrially Produced <i>trans</i> Fat in Foods in Australia

2007· article· en· W1969872915 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chakra Wijesundera, Amy Richards, Claudio Ceccato

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Oil Chemists Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrench friesFood scienceProduct (mathematics)Food productsChemistryBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Selected foods sampled from Australian supermarkets and fast food outlets were analyzed for trans fat (TF) content. The product with the highest amount of TF (6.3 g/100 g product) was a household shortening. The TF contents in spreads were remarkably low (average 0.5, range 0.2–1.3 g/100 g product) with only 3 out of 15 exceeding the maximum level (2.0 g/100 g fat) permitted in Denmark. Ready‐to‐eat French fries purchased from all but one (1.5 g/100 g product) fast food outlet contained generally low levels of TF (average 0.4, range 0.3–0.7 g/100 g product), and the majority of the outlets appeared to have used non‐hydrogenated vegetable oils for frying. Frozen French fries and ready‐to‐eat potato chips purchased from supermarkets were also low in TF (average 0.1 and 0.2 g/100 g product, respectively). So were the bakery products (biscuits, cakes, bread, cake and muffin mixes) except for croissants. However, 9 out of the 103 products tested would have been prohibited from sale in Denmark, while 25 and 12 products would have failed to qualify for ‘trans fat‐free’ claims according to the mandatory labeling regulations currently in force in Canada the USA, respectively.

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 score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Oil Chemists SocietySame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207