MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808189674 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v7n4p131

Escherichia Coli Transfer to Food by Fruit Flies during Short Time Exposure

2018· article· en· W2808189674 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmet Buyukyavuz, E.R. Benson, Jinbo Song, Brittany Ellis, Inyee Han, Paul Dawson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersClemson University
KeywordsInoculationEscherichia coliBiologyBacteriaFood scienceToxicologyVeterinary medicineHorticultureBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two separate experiments were conducted to determine the transfer of E. coli by fruit flies during short term exposure to apple slices and bologna. Short time exposure (1, 5 and 15 min) of flies to inoculated apple slices were tested in the first experiment to determine the transfer of E. coli to flies. No difference (P≤0.05) in the number of bacteria transferred to flies were found due to these exposure times. In the second experiment the transfer of E. coli from inoculated apple or bologna slices (5 min exposure) to un-inoculated slices (1, 5 and 15 min exposure) were tested. More bacteria were transferred to bologna at 1 and 5 min compared to apple while the number transferred did not differ at 15 min exposure. The percentage of E. coli transferred from inoculated food to flies was low (<0.5%) while the percentage transferred from flies to un-inoculated food was relatively high (>50%). This study found that flies can pick up and transfer bacteria to food in short exposure times.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicInsect behavior and control techniquesFrench-language works237,207