MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055932945 · doi:10.1080/10942912.2014.941476

Combined Effects of Mild Acidification and Thermal Treatment on Color and Texture of Green Beans

2015· article· en· W2055932945 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Reza Zareifard, Tony Savard, M. Marcotte, Jean-Yves Lecompte, S Grabowski

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Properties · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceChemistryResponse surface methodologyFermentationBrineRetortChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hurdle technology combining mild acidification (4.6 < pH < 5.0) and reduced thermal treatment could be a potential preservation technique for the production of high-quality processed canned vegetables once it has been microbiologically validated. Freshly harvested green beans were acidified in pre-prepared brine using one of three acidulants (lactic acid [LA], glucono-delta-lactone [GDL], or fermented dextrose containing organic acids), hermetically sealed in cans, and thermally processed in a pilot-scale water-immersion retort. Eight levels of acidulant concentration (0.01–19.5 g/kg) and five levels of desired lethality (0.01–2.74 min) were applied through uniform shell experimental design (Doehlert network method). The color and texture properties of blanched green beans (control samples) and thermally processed green beans with and without prior acidification were evaluated. Statistical analysis showed that acid concentration had a significant effect on color characteristics, and that lethality had a significant effect on texture indices (p < 0.001). Regression models were developed for the prediction of both color and texture properties of thermally processed acidified green beans with two independent parameters: acidulant concentration and lethality.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food PropertiesSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207