MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028439143 · doi:10.4141/a03-064

Distribution of intramuscular fat content and marbling within the longissimus muscle of pigs

2004· article· en· W2028439143 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
L. Faucitano, J. Rivest, J.-P. Daigle, J Lévesque, C. Gariépy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsCentre de Développement du Porc du QuébecAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsMarbled meatIntramuscular fatLongissimusLongissimus muscleLumbarMultifidus muscleAnatomyAnimal scienceBiologyMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A better knowledge of intramuscular fat (IMF) content distribution would allow the identification of a predictive site on the longissimus muscle to assess the total IMF content. For this purpose, 50 commercial crossbred pigs of both genders were selected live with ultrasound equipment at the 3rd/4th last rib in order to provide backfat differences varying from 10 to 34.7 mm. Left longissimus muscles were deboned and sliced every 2 cm from the posterior (3rd last lumbar vertebra) to the anterior (5th thoracic rib) end. In all, 14 locations on the longissimus muscle were established and labeled as T5-T14 (thoracic region) and L1-L4 (lumbar region). The slices were used for subjective marbling evaluation and for intramuscular fat content (IMF) measurement. The results showed that total IMF content and marbling scores were correlated (r = 0.86) and followed a similar pattern, with highest values being obtained in the middle section of the thoracic region and in the middle-caudal section of the lumbar area. In addition, both IMF content and marbling scores were anatomical location dependant. Gender did not affect IMF content, but influenced marbling score, castrates being more marbled (score: 2.77 vs. 2.35) than females. The IMF content (R 2 : 0.94–0.95) and marbling score (R 2 : 0.7–-0.81) were the best predictors of mean IMF when measured at or near the grading site (3rd/4th last rib). Key words: Pork, intramuscular fat, marbling score, longissimus muscle, within muscle variation

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations59
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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