MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622629682 · doi:10.4236/aim.2017.76033

Bacteriological Quality and Risk Factors for Contamination of Raw Mixed Vegetable Salads Served in Collective Catering in Abidjan (Ivory Coast)

2017· article· en· W2622629682 on OpenAlexaff
TOE Evelyne, Adjéhi Dadié, Etienne Dako, Guillaume Yao Loukou

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Microbiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmonellaContaminationFood scienceFood contaminantFood safetyToxicologyBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to determine the bacteriological quality of raw mixed vegetable salads served in collective catering in Abidjan and to assess the factors likely to favor contamination. An investigation was conducted to determine the practical risk of contamination. A total of 306 samples were collected and analyzed for the detection and enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae, E. coli and Salmonella according to standard microbiology methods. The most important risk factors were lack of training (96.7%), decontamination (84.0%), cross-contamination of vegetables in contact with fresh chicken or fish (76.7%) and salads that were uncovered and unprotected, thus exposed to the air and at ambient temperature for sale (97.7%). Theprevalence was 100%, 77.8% and 2.6% respectively for Enterobacteriaceae, E. coli and Salmonella. The average load of Enterobacteriaceae and E. coli was 4.93 log10 (CFU/g) and 1.89 log10 (CFU/g), respectively. Unsatisfactory microbiological quality samples were 52.3%. The results showed a failure of the sanitary quality in more than half of the products. Raising awareness in all of the workers in the food chain for vegetable salads is thus necessary to protect the health of the 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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in MicrobiologySame topicFood Safety and HygieneFrench-language works237,207