MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120401644 · doi:10.4141/cjas2012-147

Packing plant differences in meat quality for grain-fed veal

2013· article· en· W2120401644 on OpenAlexaffvenue
C. P. Campbell, J. Haley, Kendall C Swanson, I. B. Mandell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsBeef Farmers of OntarioUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongissimusWater holding capacityLongissimus dorsiAnimal scienceWhole grainsFood scienceChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Campbell, C. P., Haley, J., Swanson, K. C. and Mandell, I. B. 2013. Packing plant differences in meat quality for grain-fed veal. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 93: 205–215. Packing plant differences in meat quality were investigated in grain-fed veal from three commercial packing plants and a university research facility. Postmortem chilling rates were investigated in three plants including facilities which encased carcass sides in a polyliner bag intended to reduce shrinkage during chilling. Packing plant differences (P ≤ 0.01) in chilling rates were not always accompanied by plant differences in sarcomere length for longissimus or semitendinosus muscles. Drip and cooking losses and shear force for longissimus varied (P≤0.04) across packing plant with lower (P≤0.02) values found in veal slaughtered at the university research facility vs. veal from commercial packing plants. A packing plant by postmortem ageing interaction (P<0.05) for shear force was due to differences in extent of postmortem tenderization with ageing across packing plants. While use of a polyliner to encase the carcass during chilling decreased (P<0.001) rate of chilling and carcass shrinkage, there was no effect (P>0.20) on drip loss, shear force, or cooking losses vs. carcasses chilled uncovered.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207