MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148648423 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v4n2p166

Assessment of Salmonella spp. Attachment to Reusable Plastic Containers Based on Scanning Electron Microscopy and BAX® PCR

2015· article· en· W2148648423 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J Clayborn, Jacquelyn Adams, Christopher A. Baker, Steven C. Ricke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Arkansas
KeywordsBiofilmSalmonellaMicrobiologyScanning electron microscopeBacteriaMicroorganismData scrubbingFood scienceChemistryPulp and paper industryBiologyMaterials scienceWaste managementComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Reusable Plastic Containers (RPC) coupons were used to determine the ability of <em>Salmonella </em>spp. to adhere and form potential biofilms on commercial RPCs. Attachment of <em>Salmonella</em> serovars Kentucky, Newport, Enteriditis, Heidelberg, and Typhimurium was evaluated. The RPC coupons served as a platform for generating biofilms of these microorganisms. Following biofilm formation on the RPC coupons, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed to examine the coupons for bacterial presence. Additionally, the RPC coupons were subjected to a bacterial biofilm growth process and were subsequently sanitized using methods and sanitizing agents that are commonplace in commercial and industrial settings. Lastly, the RPC coupons were exposed to a bacterial biofilm growth process and swabbed using methods that closely mimic scrubbing actions performed during sanitation processes typically used in commercial and industrial settings. In all cases based on SEM assessment, bacteria not only attached to the RPC, but also could not be dislodged by the sanitizers or physical scrubbing that was applied.</p>

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)0.004
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207