High Hydrostatic Pressure Effects on the Texture of Meat and Meat Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High hydrostatic pressure (HHP) treatment can influence meat protein conformation and induce protein denaturation, aggregation, or gelation. The means whereby HHP treatment exerts effects on meat protein structure change are due to the rupture of noncovalent interactions within protein molecules, and to the subsequent re-formation of intra- and inter-molecular bonds within or among protein molecules. Depending upon the meat protein system, the pressure, the temperature, and the duration of the pressure treatment, meat can be either tenderized or toughened. Muscle texture variation induced by heat treatment is due to breakage of hydrogen bonds, whereas changes from high pressure treatment are due to the rupture of hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions. Pressure treatment has little effect on the toughness of connective tissue. Juiciness, springiness, and chewiness are increased upon HHP treatment. Prerigor HHP treatment tenderizes meat, whereas tenderizing effects of postrigor HHP treatment are only measureable if pressure and heat treatment are combined. The limitations and future applications of high pressure technology are also discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".