Effect of multiple vacuum packs on colour development and stability in beef steaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avilés, C., Juárez, M., Larsen, I. L., Rodas-González, A. and Aalhus, J. L. 2014. Effect of multiple vacuum packs on colour development and stability in beef steaks. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 94: 63–69. The aim of this study was to compare the colour stability of steaks from longissimus dorsi muscle previously submitted to four treatments of vacuum packaging and aged for 15 d. Muscle portions were either vacuum packed and aged for 15 d (NRP), or repacked after 2 h (RP2h), 8 d (RP8d) and after 2 h and 8 d (RP2h+8d). Purge loss values from RP8d and RP2h+8d treatments were higher (P=0.019) than those from NRP and drip loss was higher (P=0.001) for RP2h and RP8d. Colour changes during a 30-min period of exposure to atmospheric oxygen immediately after opening the packages were similar for repackaged-aged steaks and NRP steaks (P>0.05). Nevertheless, colour stability during subsequent retail display under atmospheric air conditions was affected by the packaging treatment. The decrease in chroma values (P=0.043) and the increase in hue (P=0.011) between day 3 and day 6 was minimum for RP2h+8d, compared with NRP, RP2h and RP8d. Also, the proportion of pigment in the myoglobin form in these three treatments dramatically increased from day 3 to day 6, while no effect was observed for RP2h+8d (P=0.005). Similarly, the decrease over time in the proportion of pigment in the oxymyoglobin form in meat from the RP2h+8d treatment was much lower (P=0.002) than for the other three packaging treatments. Changes in colour stability associated with multiple vacuum packagings may confound results in experimental designs. Thus, if beef colour is to be evaluated, repeated vacuum packaging should be limited.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".