MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of dairy proteins in lean poultry meat batters – a comparative study

2007· article· en· W2108449894 on OpenAlexafffund
Shai Barbut, Valerie Choy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersDairy Farmers of Ontario
KeywordsFood scienceSkimmed milkWhey proteinIngredientChemistryModified milk ingredientsMilk protein

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The use of dry whole milk, skimmed milk, caseinate, regular and modified whey, at 2% level (w/w) and with 2% additional protein level was studied in a chicken breast meat system with 51% water addition. At the 2% (w/w) level, all dairy proteins significantly reduced cooking loss compared with the control, with caseinate showing the best results. When compared on an equal protein level (2% total protein), the best performing ingredients were the whole milk and modified whey. A similar observation was made in their effect on the products’ hardness and fracturability. A cost analysis revealed that modified whey provided the most economical ingredient even when used in quantities three times greater than that of as caseinate. Microscopy results showed the formation of larger fine‐protein‐matrix regions in the treatments that provided higher fracturability values.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207