MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984327313 · doi:10.1021/jf000122a

Volatiles from Roasted Byproducts of the Poultry-Processing Industry

2000· article· en· W1984327313 on OpenAlexaff
Mahinda Wettasinghe, Thava Vasanthan, Feral Temelli, Kevin Swallow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryHexanalMaillard reactionAromaFlavorFood scienceChicken breastNitrogenRoastingSulfurChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volatiles of roasted chicken breast muscle and byproducts, such as backbones, breastbones, spent bones, and skin, were investigated. Total volatile concentrations ranged from 2030 ppb in the roasted backbones to 4049 ppb in the roasted skin. The major classes of volatile compounds detected in roasted samples were aldehydes (648-1532 ppb) and alcohols (336-1006 ppb). Nitrogen- and/or sulfur-containing compounds were also detected in appreciable quantities (161-706 ppb) in all samples. For all samples, hexanal and 2-methyl-2-buten-1-ol were dominant among the aldehydes and alcohols, respectively. Among the nitrogen- and sulfur-containing compounds, Maillard reaction products, such as tetrahydropyridazines, piperidines, and thiazoles, were the major contributors to the total volatile content in all samples. The composition of volatiles observed in roasted byproducts was markedly different from that of the roasted breast muscle. Therefore, the blending of the byproducts in appropriate proportions or blending of volatile flavor extracts from different byproducts may be necessary to obtain an aroma that mimics roasted chicken aroma.

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)0.000
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 score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations32
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207