MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2669776767 · doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12273

Effects of High Hydrostatic Pressure Processing on Hen Egg Compounds and Egg Products

2017· article· en· W2669776767 on OpenAlexafffund
Nassim Naderi, James D. House, Yves Pouliot, Alain Doyen

Bibliographic record

VenueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversité Laval
FundersMitacsEgg Farmers of Canada
KeywordsFood industryHydrostatic pressurePasteurizationFood scienceFood productsFood processingBiochemical engineeringPascalizationChemistryBusinessHigh pressureEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High hydrostatic pressure (HHP), used alone or with other processes, is an emerging technology increasingly used in the food industry to improve microbial safety, and the functionality and bioactive properties of food products. HHP provides a way to reduce energy requirements for food processing and may contribute to improved energy efficiency in the food industry. Hen egg is used by the food industry to formulate many food products. To improve the microbiological safety of egg and egg-derived products, HHP processing is an attractive alternative to heat- pasteurization and a potential technology. However, HHP treatment induces structural modifications of egg components (such as proteins) which could positively or negatively affect the physicochemical and functional properties of egg-derived products. Improving our knowledge regarding the potential of HHP in the egg industry will add value to the final food products and increase profitability for egg producers and the food industry.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.330
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations69
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food SafetySame topicMicrobial Inactivation MethodsFrench-language works237,207