MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036588822 · doi:10.1007/s11746-000-0194-2

Comparison of experimental techniques used in lipid crystallization studies

2000· article· en· W2036588822 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Oil Chemists Society · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Chemistry and Fat Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrystallizationTurbidimetryPolarized light microscopyMicroscopyAnhydrousLight scatteringMaterials scienceChromatographyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryTurbidityScatteringOpticsPhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Four methods were used to monitor the crystallization behavior of anhydrous milk fat (AMF), milk fat triacylglycerols (MF‐TAG), and MF‐TAG plus diacylglycerols (MF‐DAG). The crystallization process was monitored by measuring the solid fat content, turbidity, and scattering intensity of the crystallizing material, as well as by imaging using polarized light microscopy combined with digital image processing. In general, induction times followed the order MF‐DAG>AMF>MF‐TAG for all techniques. However, the absolute value for the induction times differed substantially; on average 3 min by microscopy, 7 min by light‐scattering spectroscopy, 13 min by turbidimetry, and 25 min by pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance. Microscopic imaging coupled to image processing proved to be the most sensitive method, suitable for the study of early events in the crystallization of fats.

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.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.286 · 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