Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Objective]To know the status of food hygiene in Chongzuo city,in order to resolve the problems on food hygiene and provide scientific basis for guiding health supervision.[Methods]Data of food samples randomly collected in 2006 were statistically analyzed according to the《GB of food hygiene 》.Supervision and examination on food processing company were carried out.[Results]Of the 320 samples tested,208 were up to standard,the qualified rate was 65.00%.The qualified rate in the 1st and 4th quarter(87.50%)was higher than that in the 2nd and the 3rd quarter(52.88%).There was a difference(P0.01);The qualified rate(87.99%)with physicochemical examination was higher than that with microorganism examination(60.78%).There was a difference(P0.01).[Conclusion]There was a hidden trouble on food hygiene in Chongzuo.supervision on food processing industry should be strengthened.Administration with quantization and classification on food hygiene should be carried out to cut down food contamination,improve food hygiene,ensure safety food for consumers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".