MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085545549 · doi:10.1021/jf000650m

Artificial Neural Network-Based Predictive Model for Bacterial Growth in a Simulated Medium of Modified-Atmosphere-Packed Cooked Meat Products

2001· article· en· W2085545549 on OpenAlexaff
Wengao Lou, Shuyro Nakai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLag timeResponse surface methodologyLambdaBacterial growthArtificial neural networkChemistryBiological systemLagSensitivity (control systems)MathematicsAtmosphere (unit)Modified atmosphereFood scienceChromatographyThermodynamicsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceBiologyBacteriaComputer scienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The data of Devilieghere et al. (Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1999, 46, 57--70) on bacterial growth in a simulated medium of modified-atmosphere-packed cooked meat products was processed for estimating maximum specific growth rate mu(max) and lag phase lambda of Lactobacillus sake using artificial neural networks-based model (ANNM) computation. The comparison between ANNM and response surface methodology (RSM) model showed that the accuracy of ANNM prediction was higher than that of RSM. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional plots of the response surfaces revealed that the relationships of water activity a(w), temperature T, and dissolved CO(2) concentration with mu(max) and lambda were complicated, not just linear or second-order relations. Furthermore, it was possible to compute the sensitivity of the model outputs against each input parameter by using ANNM. The results showed that mu(max) was most sensitive to a(w), T, and dissolved CO(2) in this order; whereas lambda was sensitive to T the most, followed by a(w), and dissolved CO(2) concentrations.

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 score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations63
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207