MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013720830 · doi:10.1080/09712119.2003.9706424

Effect of Skimmed Milk Powder Incorporation on the Physico-chemical and Sensory Characteristics of Restructured Buffalo Meat Blocks

2003· article· en· W2013720830 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sunil Kumar, B. D. Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Animal Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsFood scienceSkimmed milkFlavourChemistryTendernessFlavor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Kumar, S. and Sharma, B.D. 2003. Effect of skimmed milk powder incorporation on the physico-chemical and sensory characteristics of restructured buffalo meat blocks. J. Appl. Anim. Res., 23: 217–222. Restructuring of meat from spent animals brings about convenience in product preparation, besides enhancing tenderness and value addition. Milk proteins have been shown to offer added functionality and nutritional properties in some meat products. This study was undertaken to evaluate the incorporation of skimmed milk powder (SMP) at 0, 2, 4 and 6 per cent levels replacing lean meat in prestandardized restructured buffalo meat blocks. There was a progressive improvement in the cooking yield, protein, shrinkage, binding strength and sensory characteristics of the meat blocks with increasing levels of skimmed milk powder incorporation. At 2 per cent SMP incorporation, most of the physico-chemical and sensory characteristics of the product were found to be comparable to control and 4per cent SMP products. However, incorporation of 6 per cent skimmed milk powder in the product brought about a significant (P<0.05) improvement in protein, flavour, binding strength and overall acceptability as compared to control. Shrinkage loss was also significantly reduced. Key words: Buffalo meatrestructured meat blocksskimmed milk powdersensory characteristics

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Animal ResearchSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207