MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159164961 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v3n1p96

Analysis on the Quality Change of Tempeh, Catfish and Fried Chicken as the Effect of the Repetitive Used Cooking Oil

2014· article· en· W2159164961 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rina Rifqie Mariana, Titi Mutiara Kirana, Laily Hidayati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood and Agricultural Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceCatfishMathematicsChemistryRandomized block designFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to analyze the change of product characteristic that will be fried using the cooking oil that is repetitively used by the sidewalk vendors (locally abbreviated as PKL). In this study, Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) was used and divided into 2 factors: types of product consisting of 3 levels (fried chicken, fried catfish and fried tempeh (Indonesian dish made of deep-fried fermented soya beans)) and frying frequency (control, 4th frying, 6th frying and 8th frying). Once obtained, the data would be analyzed using ANOVA (Analysis of variance) method in which if an interaction is found, it would be continued by DMRT (Duncan’s Multiple Range Test) using confidence interval at 5%. The result of the research shows that the types of product and the usage of repetitively used cooking oil at the different frequencies will bring an effect on the product quality after a repetitive frying by causing a significantly different impact (? = 0. 05) on water level, nutrient level, peroxide number, TBA level, p-Anisidine number at 0, 38, and free fatty acid levels.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicFood and Agricultural SciencesFrench-language works237,207