MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178238160 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v4n6p82

Quality Traits of Longissimus thoracis and lumborum and Gluteus medium Muscles from Cull Dairy Holstein-Friesian Cows

2015· article· en· W2178238160 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C. Santos, Carlos Moniz, L.C. Roseiro, Vera Medeiros, Isabel M. Afonso, Marina Franco Maggi Tavares, Manuel A. Dias, D. J. B. DA PONTE

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongissimus ThoracisTendernessMediusAnimal scienceBiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Longissimus thoracis and lumborum (LTL) and Gluteus medius (Gm) muscles of culled dairy cows, differing in production status (Ps) at slaughter and carcass weight were assessed for intramuscular fat and myoglobin, color, shear force (SF) and sensorial characteristics, after being aged for 2, 7, 14, 28 and 42 days. Meat from dried-off cows was lighter, redder and had higher yellowness and chroma (P < 0.05) than lactating cows. Meat of finished fed cows improved in color in relation to counterparts directly slaughtered, but not significantly. Color parameters increased with aging time and the mean values of LTL and Gm significantly differed mostly among lactating cows. SF of meat was affected by aging time, muscle type, Ps and by their respective interactions (P < 0.001), with a greater impact in LTL muscle. Meat from LTL muscle of dried-off cows had lower SF (47.30 N) than that of lactating cows (65.61 N) (P < 0.05), but such differences were not significant for Gm muscle. Meat tenderness of finished fed cows was higher than counterparts not finished (P > 0.05). Main effects and the results from their interactions were significant for all sensorial attributes (P < 0.001).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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