MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EFFECT OF ENHANCED FLUORESCENT LIGHT ON ACCEPTABILITY OF MEAT CUTS

2005· article· en· W2151335272 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Muscle Foods · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncandescent light bulbFood scienceFluorescent lightFluorescenceLight sourceChemistryOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The effects of incandescent (INC) and two enhanced fluorescent lights: high‐spectrum (FL‐Hi Spec) and Chroma 50 (FL‐Chroma 50) on the appearance of fresh pork, chicken and beef meat were investigated. The color of all meats was more desirable ( P < 0.05) when presented under INC and FL‐Hi Spec lights. The color used to describe pork meat presented under these two lights was mainly pink, but was more brown under FL‐Chroma 50. Relative luminance data, collected with a fiber optic probe connected to a photo diode array, demonstrated the reason for the lower amount of red in the FL‐Chroma 50 light source. The differences among the lights were more pronounced in the lighter pork and chicken cuts than in the darker beef cuts.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.255 · 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