MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cold Meat Cuts: Effect of Retail Light on Preference

2002· article· en· W2141012339 on OpenAlexaff
Shai Barbut

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncandescent light bulbFood scienceChemistryLuminanceChicken breastMathematicsOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: The effects of 3 commercial light sources on the appearance of roast beef, ham, and cooked chicken breast were investigated. The color of all meats was most preferred (P ≤ 0.05) when presented under incandescent (INC) light, as compared to fluorescent (FL) and to metal halide (MH); all evaluated at a level of 760 lux. There was no significant difference in color preference among products presented under FL and MH. The color used, by the panelists, to describe the roast beef presented under INC light was mostly brownish‐red, 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 lack of redness when a product such as roast beef was presented under the FL and MH light sources.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207