Performance Comparison Between a Natural and a Commercial Antioxidant on Smoked Pacu (Piaractus mesopotamicus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fish consumption has grown in Brazil, but the lack of diversification in the offer of processed products restricts this eating habit. Moreover, the fact that industrialized products contain chemical additives threatens the image of fish as a healthy protein. Thus, the present study proposes not only to develop a product with antioxidant action, but also to apply it and compare it with a commercial antioxidant added to smoked pacu (Piaractus mesopotamicus) ribs. For this purpose, a meal was produced from the pulp of ‘jatobá’ (Hymenaea courbaril) fruit and its total phenolic content and antioxidant potential were tested. After its antioxidant power was proven, an experiment with 90 samples was carried out to test six storage times and five meal concentrations as a completely randomized design (CRD) with a factorial arrangement. Phase 2 was conducted with the most indicated concentration of the product, which was applied to 360 samples in a CRD with a factorial arrangement in which the factors corresponded to six storage times and two types of antioxidant (natural: jatobá meal; and commercial: butylated hydroxytoluene [BHT]) plus a control treatment. Microbiological, physicochemical, and sensory analyses were used for the evaluation. Results showed that the jatobá meal was effective as an antioxidant at the concentration of 4.5% to ensure a shelf life of 5 days under refrigerated storage, whereas BHT (100 mg/g) provided a shelf life of 10 days to the product and the treatment without antioxidant resulted in a shelf life of one day.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".