Evaluation of the Representativeness of the Odor of Cooked Mussel Extracts and the Relationship between Sensory Descriptors and Potent Odorants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The representativeness of the odor of mussel extract was assessed after each step of the distillation-extraction-concentration process. Results showed that the whole process was convenient for cooked mussels, but the extract was representative only when it was reincorporated into a suitable matrix such as water. Sensory and gas chromatography-olfactometry (GC-O) analyses were then performed on representative extracts of wild and bouchot mussels. Most of the sensory attributes were related to odors detected during olfactometry. Methional and (Z)-4-heptenal were two of the most potent odorants of mussels and, thus, were identified as the major contributors to the characteristic boiled potato-like odor of cooked mussels distinguished during sensory analysis. The sulfury note, highlighted for wild mussels during sensory analysis, could be linked to dimethyl disulfide, which was significantly more perceived in wild mussels by GC-O. Dimethyl disulfide could then be considered to be a characteristic compound of wild mussels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".