Effect of Inulin on the Physical, Chemical and Sensory Quality Attributes of Polish Chicken Burgers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><p>Four formulations of chicken burger were prepared: control product without inulin, and products with 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0 % of inulin (in relation to the weight of meat, fatty raw material, and water), respectively. Physical, chemical and sensory analyses were made to evaluate the effect of inulin on the quality of cooked burgers. The results showed that the application of inulin did not cause significant decrease of the thermal processing yield nor the shear force of the products. However, the addition of inulin resulted in slight, but significant differences (P &lt; 0.05) in chemical composition and energy value of burgers. Burgers of all formulations were acceptable in sensory characteristics. The addition level of inulin not higher than 1.0 %, did not result in deterioration of physical, chemical and sensory quality characteristics of chicken burgers. To improve the nutritional value of chicken burgers, the modification of fatty acid composition is recommended.</p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".