MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040504123 · doi:10.1021/jf010769a

Comparative Quality Assessment of Cultured and Wild Sea Bream (<i>Sparus aurata</i>) Stored in Ice

2002· article· en· W2040504123 on OpenAlexaff
Cesarettin Alasalvar, K.D.A. Taylor, Fereidoon Shahidi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFisheryAnimal scienceBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Food science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations86
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207