MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018559690 · doi:10.4141/a02-114

Seasonal changes of connective tissue fluorescence in well-aged beef roasts, correcting for fat reflectance and signal source

2003· article· en· W2018559690 on OpenAlexaffvenue
H. J. Swatland

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConnective tissueIntramuscular fatReflectivityFluorescenceLongissimus ThoracisChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Materials scienceNuclear magnetic resonanceAnatomyAnimal scienceBiologyOpticsPathologyPhysicsMedicineChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thirty well-aged (30.3 ± 4.5 d) rib roasts were evaluated serially from January to August. A dual-channel fibre-optic probe measured fluorescence (F; excitation at 365 nm and emission from 410 to 550 nm) and reflectance (R; 550 nm) on the way-in (WI) and way-out (WO). Anatomical measurements were used to differentiate between signals exterior to the longissimus thoracis (EXLT) and intramuscular signals (INLT). Each roast was probed in eight locations, giving 32 sets of signals (position, WI or WO, EXLT or INLT). F peaks c-1 decreased serially with time, mean r = -0.47, P < 0.01. A ratio (F:R) was used to correct F signals for pseudofluorescence (upper edge of F excitation band-pass reflected from fat). This strengthened (P < 0.001) the mean correlation of F:R peaks cm-1 with time to r = -0.59, P < 0.001. F:R peaks cm-1 in EXLT and INLT were correlated, r = 0.24 for WI and r = 0.57 for WO, showing development of extramuscular and intramuscular connective tissues was linked ( P < 0.0005, n = 480). Key words: Beef, connective tissue, fluorescence, seasonal effect

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.300
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207