MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986161824 · doi:10.3791/50255

Introducing an Angle Adjustable Cutting Box for Analyzing Slice Shear Force in Meat

2013· article· en· W1986161824 on OpenAlexafffund
Tom Whitesell, C. Avilés, J.L. Aalhus, Chris R. Calkins, I. L. Larsen, M. Juárez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsShear forceTendernessShear (geology)Materials scienceLongissimus muscleCore (optical fiber)LongissimusMeat packing industryComposite materialMathematicsAnatomyChemistryBiologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research indicates the fibre angle of the longissimus muscle can vary, depending upon location within a steak and throughout the muscle. Instead of using the original fixed 45 ° or 90 ° cutting angle for testing shear force, a variable angle cutting box can be adjusted so the angles of the knives correspond to the fibre angle of each sample. Within 2 min after cooking to an internal temperature of 71 °C on an open-hearth grill set at 210 °C, a 1 cm by 5 cm core is cut from the steak, parallel to muscle fibre direction, using 2 knife blades set 1 cm apart. This warm core is then subjected to the Slice Shear Force protocol (SSF) to evaluate meat texture. The use of the variable angle cutting box and the SSF protocol provides an accurate representation of the maximal shear force, as the slice and muscle fibres are consistently parallel. Therefore, the variable angle cutting box, in conjunction with the SSF protocol, can be used as a high-throughput technique to accurately evaluate meat tenderness in different locations of the longissimus muscle and, potentially, in other muscles.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207