MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775320913 · doi:10.5864/d2017-026

The effectiveness of common methods of cold-holding on the temperature of milk

2017· article· en· W2775320913 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marissa Perrella, Richard Meldrum, Melissa T. Moos, Ian Young

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPasteurizationCartonCold chainFood scienceMilk productsToxicologyBusinessWaste managementBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Keeping self-serve milk below 4 °C may become difficult for a food premise operator who relies on the use of insulated containers for several hours. Although milk sold in Canada is pasteurized, it may have the potential to cause illness if exposed to improper temperatures. The primary objective of this study was to demonstrate which product would be the most effective at keeping milk cold for the longest period to decrease the potential risk of foodborne illness. A survey was conducted in food premises throughout the Niagara region to determine which products were most commonly used for cold-holding milk, followed by a time-series analysis to investigate how rapidly the temperature of milk increased when stored in typical containers after 8 hours. Results showed that vacuum-insulated carafes are the most effective at cold-holding and stainless-steel carton holders are the least effective. The Niagara survey showed that 8 of 27 premises visited used these poorly insulated stainless-steel carton holders, which may be additionally susceptible to human contamination from potentially pathogenic bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus due to their open spout.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health ReviewSame topicFood Safety and HygieneFrench-language works237,207