MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characterization of Mesophilic Mixed Starter Cultures Used for the Manufacture of Aged Cheddar Cheese

2000· article· en· W1980634521 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Frédéric Bissonnette, Steve Labrie, Hélène Deveau, M. Lamoureux, Sylvain Moineau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalAgropur cooperative
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNovalait
KeywordsStarterMesophileLactococcus lactisFood scienceFermentation starterBiologyCheesemakingHomogeneousPlasmidMicrobiologyBacteriophageBacteriaEscherichia coliLactic acidBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seventy-one different Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris strains were isolated from seven mesophilic mixed starters used in the manufacture of aged Cheddar cheese in Canada. Based on plasmid profiles and growth in milk (with or without glucose, Casamino Acids or both), two mixed starters were highly heterogeneous, containing at least 18 to 24 distinct L. lactis strains. Three mixed starters were comprised of seven to nine strains, whereas two starters were relatively homogeneous, containing two or three strains. Many strains with similar plasmid profiles behaved differently during growth in milk, indicating variability in the phenotypes. Only 20% of the strains could grow in plain milk, whereas 30% could not grow in milk supplemented with glucose and Casamino Acids. Twenty-five lactococcal bacteriophages were also isolated from whey samples with single strains as hosts. Eighteen phages belonged to the 936 species and seven to the c2 species. Thirteen strains were insensitive to all 25 phages. Almost all sensitive strains were phage species-specific. The 936-like phages had a broader host range.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations92
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207