Short communication. Sensory evaluation of commercial beef produced in Uruguay and three European countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main goal of this study was to characterize and compare the organoleptic quality of beef from Uruguay and from three European countries. In Uruguay, 40 Hereford steers were raised exclusively under grazing conditions up to either two or three years old. Meat samples were aged for 20 days, matching commercial conditions. In Europe, one commercial local beef type, with two ageing times (7 and 20 days), from Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom were compared with Uruguayan beef samples, using 20 animals of each treatment per country. The highest beef odour and flavour scores were for the British beef aged for 7 days followed by the German and Uruguayan meat. Beef from the youngest animals (Spanish) and, especially from the UK, were up to 42 and 62%, respectively, more tender than German beef, all of them aged for 7 days. The highest juiciness scores were for the Uruguayan three years old beef. Long ageing periods (20 days) tended to produce off-aromas in the case of the British beef, which showed the highest scores in abnormal odour flavour intensities. European beef showed a significant variability in its sensory attributes that could not be justified only by differences in the ageing time. Uruguayan beef has meat with similar sensory characteristics to some European meats, and because of that it could have good consumer acceptability.
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 | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| 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".