Use of Avocado and Tomato Paste as Ingredients to Improve Nutritional Quality of Pork Frankfurter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research was to study the effect of avocado pulp (A) and tomato paste (T) addition on the physicochemical, nutritional and sensory quality of pork frankfurters. Treatments were: 1) Control; 2) A10 = 10% A; 3) A20 = 20% A; 4) T10 = 10% T; 5) T20 = 20% T; and 6) A10+T10 = 10% A+10% T. Colour (L*, a* and b*), fatty acid profile, contents of phenols and flavonoids, and antioxidant capacity were measured. In the same way, sensory analysis was evaluated. Tomato paste decreased L* but increased (P < 0.05) a* and b* values. On the other hand, A did not affect L*, decreased a* and increased b*. Avocado pulp increased (P < 0.05) the proportion of monounsaturated fatty acids in the finished product. Antioxidant activity increased (P < 0.05) with incorporation of T, much higher than that observed by adding A. Frankfurters with T and with a combination of T and A had the best acceptance by the sensory panel. The use of T and A can be a good strategy to improve nutritional quality and antioxidant properties of pork frankfurters.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".