Variability and distribution among sample test results when sampling unprocessed oat lots for ochratoxin A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2008, Health Canada announced it was considering the establishment of maximum levels for ochratoxin A (OTA) in a number of foods, including unprocessed wheat and oats and their products. The Canada Grains Council and Canadian National Millers Association initiated a study to measure the variability and distribution among sample test results so that scientifically based sampling plans could be designed to meet regulatory and industry requirements. Twenty lots of oats naturally contaminated with OTA were identified and sampled according to a nested experimental protocol where 16-two kg laboratory samples were taken from each lot, two 100 g test portions were taken from each comminuted laboratory sample, and two aliquots of the extract from each test portion were analysed for OTA by LC. The variance associated with each step of the OTA test procedure were found to be a function of OTA concentration and regression equations were developed to predict the functional relationship. When using the above OTA test procedure on an oat lot at 5 μg/kg, the sampling, sample preparation, analytical, and total variances were 11.26, 0.10, 0.13 and 11.49, respectively. The 2 kg sampling step accounted for 98.0% (11.26/11.49) of the total variability. The observed OTA distribution among the 16 OTA sample results was found to be positively skewed and the negative binomial distribution was selected to model the OTA distribution among sample test results. The sampling statistics were incorporated into the FAO Mycotoxin Sampling Tool where operating characteristic curves were calculated to predict the chances of rejecting good lots (seller’s risk) and accepting bad lots (buyer’s risk) for various sampling plan designs.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".