Comparative Quality Assessment of Cultured and Wild Sea Bream (<i>Sparus aurata</i>) Stored in Ice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparative quality assessment of cultured and wild sea bream stored in ice for up to 23 days was achieved by the monitoring of sensory quality, levels of nucleotide, nucleotide breakdown products, and texture by a texturometer. The changes in sensory quality of both raw and cooked fish were assessed using the modified Tasmanian and Torry schemes, respectively. K and related values (freshness indicators), namely, K, K(i), G, P, H, and F(r), were calculated. Linear increases (r(2) > or = 0.99) in K, K(i), G, and P (and a decrease in F(r)) values for cultured sea bream and in the H value for wild sea bream with increasing storage periods were observed. The limit for acceptability of cultured and wild sea bream stored in ice was approximately 16-18 days (average K, K(i), G, and P values: approximately 35-40%; H values: approximately 5% for cultured and 10% for wild; and F(r ) values: approximately 65-70%). The texture of cultured and wild sea bream decreased throughout the storage period, and they were not significantly (p > 0.05) different until after day 16 when the wild sea bream was significantly softer than the cultured. The sensory score of both cultured and wild raw fish showed a good relationship with some freshness and texture indicators over the entire storage period (r(2) values > or = 0.99). These indicators were K, K(i), G, P, and F(r) values for cultured and H value for wild fish.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".