MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295976817 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v5n2p1

Effects of Early Post-Mortem Rate of pH fall and aging on Tenderness and Water Holding Capacity of Meat from Cull Dairy Holstein-Friesian Cows

2016· article· en· W2295976817 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C. Santos, Carlos Moniz, L.C. Roseiro, Marina Franco Maggi Tavares, Vera Medeiros, Isabel M. Afonso, Manuel A. Dias, D. J. B. DA PONTE

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceTendernessLongissimus ThoracisChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fast or slow muscle pH fall may give unacceptable purge losses or tough meat, depending much on concomitant evolution of muscle temperature early post-mortem, costing millions of euros to the meat industry. Tenderness and purge losses of Longissimus thoracis/lumborum (LTL) and Gluteus medius (Gm) sampled from cull dairy cows differing in production status (10 lactating vs. 22 dried off) and aging time, were evaluated regarding different rates of pH2 fall. Shear force related to pH2 was dependent on muscle and aging time. The intermediate glycolysis led to lower shear force in LTL, while the faster produced best quality in Gm. Purge was influenced by pH2 (P=0.0077), aging (P<0.0001) and muscle*pH2 interaction (P<0.0001). Aging affected thawing (P<0.0001), grilling (P=0.0004) and overall losses (P<0.0001). Under the ruled chilling regime, the fast pH fall in Gm and the slow pH fall in LTL approached out of the ideal pH6/temperature limits, being compatible with heat and cold shortening, respectively.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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