MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057250588 · doi:10.1021/jf0349376

Acrylamide in French Fries:  Influence of Free Amino Acids and Sugars

2004· article· en· W2057250588 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPotato Plant Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcrylamideFrench friesChemistryAsparagineMaillard reactionSucroseSugarFructoseFood scienceChromatographyReducing sugarIsotope dilutionAmino acidBiochemistryOrganic chemistryMass spectrometryPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The free amino acid profile and sugar (fructose, glucose, and sucrose) composition were determined in potato samples selected to give a large range of variation (a total of 66 samples). From these samples French fries were produced in a laboratory-scale simulation of an industrial process followed by a finish fry at 180 degrees C for 3.5 min using a restaurant fryer. The final product was blast frozen and analyzed for acrylamide. Acrylamide was detected in all samples, but its concentration varied significantly from 50 to 1800 ng/g. For isotope dilution (13C3) acrylamide analysis, samples were extracted with water, cleaned up on HLB Oasis polymeric and Accucat mixed mode anion and cation exchange SPE columns, and analyzed by LC-MS/MS. Statistical analysis of the data indicates that the effect of sugars and asparagine on the concentration of acrylamide in French fries is positive and significant (p < 0.001). It appears that one of the ways acrylamide formation in French fries can be effectively controlled is by the use of raw products with low sugar (and to a lesser degree, asparagine) content.

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.

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 score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.191 · 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