MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022576551 · doi:10.4141/a00-097

The effect of transport time from the assembly yard to the abattoir and resting time at the abattoir on pork quality

2002· article· en· W2022576551 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
A. Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over 1900 pigs, supplied by two producers, were first delivered to an assembly yard and then transported to a commercial abattoir. Transport times were 50 min and 2 h, and resting periods at the abattoir were < 30 min, 3 h and 6 h. Times were chosen to represent normal practices in Ontario. The colour and structure of the boneless loins were as sessed subjectively 24 h postmortem. The shorter (50 min) transport time was associated with the highest (P ≤ 0.05) incidence of pale and soft/exudative loins. A longer transport time reduced the incidence of pale and soft/exudative loins; it also increased (P ≤ 0.05) the incidence of dark and firm/dry loins; particularly during winter. A resting period of < 30 min resulted in the highest (P ≤ 0.01) incidence of pale and soft/exudative loins. A 3 h resting period significantly improved (P ≤ 0.01) quality by reducing the incidence of pale loins and soft/exudative loins. Extending the resting period from 3 h to 6 h provided inconsistent improvements in quality due to interactions with season (P ≤ 0.05) and producer/management (P ≤ 0.05). Considering transport time and resting period together further highlighted the importance of resting period at the abattoir. Three h resting period always improved (P ≤ 0.05) quality regardless of transport time, season or producer. Key words: Transport, resting period, pork quality, pale, soft and exudative, DFD

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

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

Citations25
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207