MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112857552 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v1n2p99

The Effect of Thawing and Storage Temperature on the Microbial Quality of Commercial Frozen Ready Meals and Experimental Reduced Salt Frozen Ready Meals

2012· article· en· W2112857552 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Edel Durack, Mercedes Alonso-Gómez, Martin G. Wilkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesophilePsychrophileFood scienceListeriaThermophilePseudomonasExtremophileSalt (chemistry)Listeria monocytogenesChemistryBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of thawing at 4ºC or ambient temperature (~20ºC) on the indigenous microflora of commercial regular salt (0.6-1.3% w/w) frozen ready meals was investigated. In a separate trial, the microbial quality of regular salt frozen ready meals was compared with reformulated reduced salt (0.2-0.54%, w/w) counterparts stored at 4ºC, 10ºC or ambient temperature over 8 days. All samples were analysed for psychrophilic, mesophilic, thermophilic and sporeforming bacteria, Pseudomonas, Staphylococcus and for the presence of Listeria species. During storage, psychrophiles, mesophiles, coliforms, Pseudomonas, sporeformers and Listeria were detected in the commercial regular salt ready meals while mesophiles, thermophiles, coliforms and Pseudomonas were detected in the reduced salt counterparts. Levels of mesophilic bacteria ranged from ~3-4 log10 in commercial regular salt meals and ~2-5 log10 in experimental lower salt meals. Overall, a substantial reduction in salt content (50 – 66%) did not appear to adversely impact on the microbial quality of the reduced salt meals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorFrench-language works237,207