MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135910064 · doi:10.1139/w07-042

Pulsed-light system as a novel food decontamination technology: a review

2007· review· en· W2135910064 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noura Elmnasser, Sandrine Guillou, Françoise Leroi, Nicole Orange, Amina Bakhrouf, Michel Fédérighi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman decontaminationFood spoilageFood scienceOrganolepticMicroorganismBroad spectrumFood preservationFood qualityFood microbiologyMaterials scienceChemistryBiologyBacteriaMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to consumer preferences for high quality foods that are as close as possible to fresh products, athermal technologies are being developed to obtain products with high levels of organoleptic and nutritional quality but free of any health risks. Pulsed light is a novel technology that rapidly inactivates pathogenic and food spoilage microorganisms. It appears to constitute a good alternative or a complement to conventional thermal or chemical decontamination processes. This food preservation method involves the use of intense, short-duration pulses of broad-spectrum light. The germicidal effect appears to be due to both photochemical and photothermal effects. Several high intensity flashes of broad spectrum light pulsed per second can inactivate microbes rapidly and effectively. However, the efficacy of pulsed light may be limited by its low degree of penetration, as microorganisms are only inactivated on the surface of foods or in transparent media such as water. Examples of applications to foods are presented, including microbial inactivation and effects on food matrices.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations316
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicMicrobial Inactivation MethodsFrench-language works237,207