MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061580226 · doi:10.1021/jf0518958

Raman Spectroscopy Determines Structural Changes Associated with Gelation Properties of Fish Proteins Recovered at Alkaline pH

2006· article· en· W2061580226 on OpenAlexaff
Supawan Thawornchinsombut, Jae W. Park, Guangtao Meng, Eunice C.Y. Li‐Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProteins in Food Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaman spectroscopyCryoprotectantScanning electron microscopeChemistryMicrostructureTexture (cosmology)Analytical Chemistry (journal)RockfishCrystallographyChromatographyFish <Actinopterygii>Materials scienceCryopreservationOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural changes of alkali-treated rockfish protein isolate (AKPI) during frozen storage were elucidated using a Raman spectrometer and scanning electron microscope (SEM). The results were compared to conventional surimi (CS). No significant textural difference was noted between AKPI stored at pH 5.5 and 7.0. The strongest texture was found for AKPI frozen with cryoprotectants and CS, while the weakest texture was observed in AKPI frozen without cryoprotectants. SEM revealed the most discontinuity in gels of AKPI with no cryoprotectants and a more aggregated microstructure after storage at pH 5.5 than at neutral pH. Raman spectral analysis demonstrated refolding of AKPI by pH readjustment to 7.0, although the refolded structure was not identical to that before the pH shift. CS showed higher alpha-helix content (approximately 50%) than AKPI (approximately 20-30%). Frozen storage induced a decrease and an increase in the alpha-helix content of CS and AKPI samples, respectively. AKPIs were slightly less stable than CS during frozen storage.

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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations50
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicProteins in Food SystemsFrench-language works237,207