MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014613673 · doi:10.1080/19440049.2010.502654

Baseline levels of melamine in food items sold in Canada. I. Dairy products and soy-based dairy replacement products

2010· article· en· W2014613673 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sheryl A. Tittlemier, Benjamin P.‐Y. Lau, Cathie Ménard, Catherine Corrigan, Melissa Sparling, Dean W. Gaertner, Xu‐Liang Cao, Bob Dabeka

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Additives and Contaminants Part B · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMelamine detection and toxicity
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelamineFood scienceDairy foodsFood productsMilk productsHealth benefitsAgricultural scienceChemistryMedicineEnvironmental scienceTraditional medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of dairy and soy-based dairy replacement products (n = 246) purchased from Canadian retail outlets were analysed for baseline levels of melamine (MEL) using a sensitive LC-MS/MS method (method quantification limit = 4 µg/kg). MEL was infrequently detected; only 14% of the items analysed contained quantifiable levels of MEL. The concentrations observed, aside from one recalled sample of candy, ranged from 0.00435 to 0.276 mg/kg, and were at least 10 times lower than the 2.5 mg/kg interim standard for melamine in products containing milk and milk-derived ingredients established by Health Canada. The consumption of foods containing these low levels of MEL does not constitute a health risk for consumers.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Additives and Contaminants Part BSame topicMelamine detection and toxicityFrench-language works237,207