MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513914950 · doi:10.1017/s1357729800052632

Visible/near infrared reflectance spectroscopy for predicting composition and tracing system of production of beef muscle

2002· article· en· W2513914950 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel Cozzolino, D. De Mattos, D. Vaz Martins

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
KeywordsNear infrared reflectance spectroscopyChemistryPrincipal component analysisPartial least squares regressionNear-infrared spectroscopyReflectivityCoefficient of determinationChromatographyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Animal scienceMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Muscle chemical analysis and muscle identification both were attempted by using visible and near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS). Seventy-eight beef muscles (m. longissimus dorsi) from Hereford cattle were used. The samples were scanned in a NIRS monochromator instrument (NIRSystems 6500, Silver Spring, MD, USA) in reflectance mode (log 1/R). Both intact and minced muscle presentation to the instrument were explored. Predictive equations were made using ISI software (Infrasoft International, Port Matilda, PA, USA) and muscle identification was performed by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Soft Independent Modelling of Class Analogy (SIMCA). The coefficient of determination in calibration (R 2 CAL ) and standard error in cross validation (SECV) for the intact sample presentation were 009 (SECV: 15·6), 0·89 (SECV: 46·9), 0·48 (SECV: 23·9) for moisture (M), fat and crude protein (CP) on g/kg fresh weight basis respectively. R2CAL and SECV for minced sample presentation were 0·41 (SECV: 161), 0·92 (SECV: 43·4), 0·71 (SECV: 20·5) for M, fat and CP on g/kg fresh weight basis respectively. Qualitative analysis of optical information through PCA and SIMCA analysis showed differences in muscles resulting from two different feeding systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations75
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal ScienceSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207