MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of Autolytic and Proteolytic Lactobacilli and Nisin‐Producing Culture on Proteolysis and Sensory Characteristics in Cheddar Cheese

2004· article· en· W2048417433 on OpenAlexaff
L. Sallami, Ehab Kheadr, Ismaı̈l Fliss, Jean-Christophe Vuillemard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactobacillaceaeNisinLactobacillus caseiLactobacillusCheese ripeningLactococcus lactisProteolysisFood scienceChemistryLactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricusRipeningStarterBiochemistryFermentation starterCaseinMicrobiologyLactic acidBiologyBacteriaFermentationAntimicrobialEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Cheddar cheeses were made using a nisin‐tolerant starter culture with either Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus UL12 (autolytic strain), Lactobacillus casei subsp. casei L2A (proteolytic strain), Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis biovar. diacetylactis UL719 (nisin producer), or of Lb. bulgaricus UL12 and Lc. diacetylactis UL719. Lb. bulgaricus UL12 produced more trichloroacetic acid‐soluble nitrogen than did Lb. casei L2A, which produced more phosphotungstic acid‐soluble nitrogen than did Lc. diacetylactis UL719. High‐performance liquid chromatography analyses showed that either lactobacilli or Lc. diacetylactis UL719 increased the hydrophilic and hydrophobic peptide contents. Cheeses containing both Lb. bulgaricus UL12 and Lc. diacetylactis UL719 had the most intense old Cheddar cheese flavor after 6 mo of ripening.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207