MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979345311 · doi:10.1080/02652030500241884

Survey of aflatoxins in beer sold in Canada

2005· article· en· W1979345311 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Mably, M. Mankotia, P. Cavlovic, James P. Tam, Lee-Yang Wong, Peter Pantazopoulos, P. Calway, Peter Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Additives & Contaminants · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAflatoxinBusinessGeographyFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between March 1998 and March 2002, 304 samples of domestic (Canadian) and imported beers from 36 countries were picked up for the determination of aflatoxins B1, B2, G1 and G2. Twelve samples were positive with aflatoxins greater than the limit of quantitation (LOQ) (aflatoxin B1, 4.4 ng l(-1); aflatoxin B2, 3.4 ng l(-1); aflatoxin G1, 11.2 ng l(-1); and aflatoxin G2, 6.2 ng l(-1)). Five samples from Mexico, two samples from Spain and one from Portugal contained aflatoxin B1. Four samples from India contained aflatoxins B1 and B2. The remaining samples contained less than the LOQ for aflatoxins B1, B2, G1 and G2. The analytical method for this survey was based on that of Scott and Lawrence (Scott PM, Lawrence GA. 1997. Determination of aflatoxins in beer. Journal of AOAC International 80:1229-1234.). Aflatoxins B1, B2, G1 and G2 were determined at parts per trillion (ng l(-1)) levels in beer by immunoaffinity column cleanup followed by derivatization with trifluoroacetic acid and reversed-phase liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations52
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Additives & ContaminantsSame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207