<i>Consumer Food Handling Recommendations:</i> Is thawing of turkey a food safety issue?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While it is important that dietitians and other health or food professionals provide consistent messages to the public about food safety, it is equally important that the information be evidence-based. Conflicting recommendations are evident when reviewing consumer publications from food safety advisory groups and the scientific literature. In addition, caveats are attached to the various food-handling methods. Pathogens, spoilage microorganisms, and contamination of the work area are the major concerns in thawing turkey. While several methods, including thawing on the counter at ambient temperatures, can be employed for thawing turkey, cooking to an adequate internal temperature, validated with a meat thermometer, is the more critical step. The findings indicate that providing clients or consumers with clear, consistent, evidence-based messages is difficult for food and health professionals. Further research is required to corroborate best practices in a kitchen setting. This paper is of interest to professionals who counsel clients at high risk for foodborne illness, or who counsel consumers about safe preparation of foods such as turkey.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".