MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997903939 · doi:10.1021/bp034338j

Pressure Shift Freezing of Pork Muscle: Effect on Color, Drip Loss, Texture, and Protein Stability

2004· article· en· W1997903939 on OpenAlexafffund
Shouzheng Zhu, Alain Le‐Bail, N. Chapleau, Hosahalli S. Ramaswamy, M. deLamballerie-Anton

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotechnology Progress · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTexture (cosmology)ChemistryFood scienceBiophysicsBiologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cylindrical specimens (50 mm diameter and 160 mm length) of fresh pork muscle (boneless rib portions) packed in plastic bags were frozen by pressure shift freezing (PSF) at 100, 150, and 200 MPa, air blast freezing (ABF), and liquid immersion freezing (LIF). Temperature and phase transformations of the muscle tissue were monitored during the freezing process at three locations: center, midway between the center and the surface, and near the surface. Pork muscle quality changes [color, drip loss (both thawing and cooking), texture (shear force), and protein stability (DSC thermal profiles)] were evaluated after thawing the frozen samples at room temperature (20 degrees C). Employing pressures above 150 MPa caused very significant (P < 0.01) color changes in pork muscle during the PSF process. The PSF process reduced thawing drip loss of pork muscle but did not cause obvious changes in total drip loss following thawing and subsequent cooking. PSF at 150 and 200 MPa resulted in considerable denaturation of myofibrillar proteins of pork muscle. The PSF process also caused an increase in the pork muscle toughness as compared with that of unfrozen, ABF, and LIF samples.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiotechnology ProgressSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207