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 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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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