MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114134554 · doi:10.3382/ps.2012-02329

Deboning broiler chicken legs and wings by dislocation of articular cartilage followed by stripping periosteum

2012· article· en· W2114134554 on OpenAlexaff
T. Nakano, Lech Ozimek, Mirko Betti

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroilerPeriosteumAnatomyAnimal scienceTibiaMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The yield of deboned meat is an important economic factor affecting the profit of the meat industry. This study was undertaken to determine whether the yield of boneless meat from broiler chicken leg (thigh and drumstick) and wing (drumette and winglet) is improved by introducing a new deboning method consisting of articular cartilage dislocation followed by stripping periosteum. A total of 44 broiler chicken carcasses were used in the deboning experiment. Right and left legs or wings from the first 22 carcasses were assigned to the new and ordinary hand deboning methods, respectively. For the remaining 22 carcasses, right and left legs or wings were assigned to the ordinary and new methods, respectively. The weight of residue, composed of bone and small amounts of cartilage and noncartilaginous tissues obtained after deboning, was then compared between the right and left legs or wings to see the difference between the 2 methods. The removal of tibia, fibula, humerus, radius, or ulna resulted in formation of a hollow in boneless meat obtained. There was no difference (P > 0.05) between the right and left legs or wings in the weight of residue obtained after deboning as expected. The weight of residue was less (P < 0.05) with the new method compared with the ordinary method in all chicken parts examined. The difference of residue weight between the 2 methods accounted for 10, 12, 14, and 21% of the weight of residue obtained by the ordinary method in thigh, drumstick, drumette, and winglet, respectively. The new method may be useful to deboners at home kitchens as well as the poultry meat industry. The present study also showed the development of a secondary ossification center at the proximal end of the carpometacarpus of chickens. This is, to our knowledge, the first report of development of secondary ossification center in chicken wings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207