Investigation and Modeling of Electrical Stunning Parameters of Turkey Using Response Surface Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The aim of this work is to evaluate the effects of electrical stunning parameters of turkey on the quality of steak and stew using the response surface methodology. 1584 turkeys were used for the study. The parameters tested were the voltage and pulse. The responses were the sensory quality of steak and stew. The rejection rate varies between 0.23% (steak female) and 56.06% (female stew). Results show that it is possible to obtain a low rejection rates (< 1% for the steak of male turkey) at a voltage of 50 Volts and pulse of 7. In comparison of pulse, voltage remains the most important factor. The optimal conditions selected for the total output of the process obtained from the analysis of the response surfaces are: voltage, from 45 to 47 Volts; pulse from 6.5 to 7 and voltage from 50 to 52 Volts; pulse from 6.8 to 7, respectively for female and male turkeys. Under these experimental conditions, the rejection rates range from 0.23% to 0.80% and from 11.93% to 13.27% respectively for steak and stew. The results show that the voltage and pulse are both the parameters meaning on the global quality of steak and stew.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".