THE RELATIONSHIP OF ILLUMINATION TO THE COLOR AND ACCEPTABILITY OF FERMENTED SAUSAGE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The effects of incandescent (INC), fluorescent (FL), and metal halide (MH) light sources on the acceptance of Genoa salami, summer sausage and Cappola salami were investigated. The color of the Genoa salami was most preferred (P < 0.05) under INC light, as compared to FL and MH. Positive buying response was also significantly higher (P < 0.01) for this light product presented under INC. The major color used to describe the Genoa under INC light was pink, but brown under FL and MH. Relative luminance data, collected with a fiber optic probe connected to a photo diode array, demonstrated the reason to be a low red emission from the FL and MH light sources. The acceptability of the darker summer sausage and Cappola were not as affected by light source as the Genoa salami. The summer sausage was more preferred under INC compared to MH, but not under FL. The Cappola's color preference was not affected by any of the lights.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".