MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034606748 · doi:10.1021/jf991201t

Solid Phase Microextraction/Gas Chromatography of <i>Salmonella-</i>Infected Beef

2000· article· en· W2034606748 on OpenAlexaff
Hirokazu Ogihara, Yasumi Horimoto, Zhi Hai Wang, Brenton J. Skura, Shuryo Nakai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmonellaBacteriaSolid-phase microextractionFood scienceGas chromatographyChemistryPathogenic bacteriaChromatographyIncubationInoculationMicrobiologyBiologyGas chromatography–mass spectrometryMass spectrometryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eight strains of Salmonellae were incubated in TSB culture medium at 37 degrees C for 24 h. Volatile compounds derived from the bacteria were collected using solid-phase microextraction fibers and then applied to gas chromatography (GC). Similarity analysis of the GC patterns thus obtained could separate these strains on principal component similarity (PCS) scattergrams. Five major food-related pathogenic bacteria and 10 other bacteria (including one Salmonella strain) were also classified by growing in the same medium. It is then proposed to utilize this approach to improve the GC/PCS method of Nakai et al. [Nakai, S.; Wang, Z. H.; Dou, J.; Nakamura, S.; Ogawa, M.; Nakai, E.; Vangerstoep, J. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1999, 47, 576-583] that has been developed for screening safe foods by detecting bacteria contaminated foods. Inoculating food samples pre-enriched through preliminary incubation into a culture medium and then subjecting to the GC/PCS method after secondary incubation enhances the detectability of pathogenic bacteria.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations10
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207