Relationship between pork muscle fiber diameter and optical transmittance measured by scanning microphotometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle fibers (n = 50) were isolated from pork psoas minor muscles and mounted in 0.2 M phosphate buffer at pH 5.5 or 7.0. A microscope scanning stage and photometer were used to measure transmittance (T) in relation to fiber diameter, anticipating attenuation of T with increasing diameter. However, T across fibers was often asymmetrical, showing fibers retained flattened sides after being released from bulk meat. A lateral measurement of fiber diameter (89.76 ± 17.07 μm at pH 5.5 and 97.43 ± 20.04 μm at pH 7.0, P > 0.05) was compared with minimum T at any point across a fiber. No T attenuation was detected at pH 7.0 (r = 0.07). At pH 5.5, instead of attenuation, the relationship of T with diameter was positive (r = 0.44, P < 0.05), possibly from differences in myofibrillar composition between small and large diameter fibers (fibrillenstruktur versus felderstruktur). However, attenuation at pH 5.5 was greater than at pH 7.0 (2.76 ± 1.19 vs. 1.42 ± 0.65 ΔT mm -1 , respectively, P < 0.001) and was strongly related to wavelength (r = 0.97, P < 0.001). It was concluded fiber shape and fiber-type composition may affect optical properties of bulk meat and myofibrillar refraction may contribute to post-mortem development of normal paleness in pork. Key words: Pork, muscle fibers, paleness
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".