MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056900415 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v1n4p124

The Microbiological Condition of Canadian Beef Steaks Offered for Retail Sale in Canada

2012· article· en· W2056900415 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
M. Badoni, Sreenath Rajagopal, J. L. Aalhus, Mark D. Klassen, C.O. Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsCanadian Cattlemen's AssociationAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaBeef Cattle Research Council
KeywordsFood scienceAnimal scienceEscherichia coliChemistryBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Steaks of 4 types collected from 113 retails stores in 4 Canadian cities were frozen for storage. Swab samples collected from approximately 100 cm<sup>2</sup> of each of 598 thawed steaks were processed for enumeration of bacteria. The fraction of steaks from which total aerobic counts (AER), psychrotrophs (PSY), lactic acid bacteria (LAB), pseudomonads(PSE) and <em>Brochothrix thermosphacta</em> (BRO) were not recovered at <span style="text-decoration: underline;">></span> 2 log cfu/100 cm<sup>2 </sup>were 3, 12, 8, 25 and 51%, respectively. The fractions of steaks from which coliforms (COL) and <em>Escherichia coli</em> (ECO) were not recovered at <span style="text-decoration: underline;">></span> 0 log cfu/ 100 cm<sup>2 </sup>were 56 and 92%, respectively. The log number per 100 cm<sup>2</sup> recovered from <span style="text-decoration: underline;">></span> 90% of steaks were < 6 for AER, PSY and LAB, < 5 for PSE, <4 for BRO, and < 2 for COL. The microbiological conditions of groups of steaks of different types, from different cities or from different groups of stores were not substantially different.</p>

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207