MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908776015 · doi:10.1080/00032719.2018.1545133

Origin Authentication of Pork Fat via Elemental Composition, Isotope Ratios, and Multivariate Chemometric Analyses

2019· article· en· W2908776015 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eun Yeong Nho, Ji Yeon Choi, Cheong Mi Lee, Yun Dang, Naeem Khan, Nargis Jamila, Kyong Su Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryStrontiumPrincipal component analysisEnvironmental chemistryManganeseZincMultivariate statisticsVanadiumMineralogyInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globalization has resulted in the availability of food products from other countries, and therefore today consumers are concerned to know the origin of their food. Efficient analytical techniques are required to guarantee accurate labeling and the authentication of the food origin. This study was designed to analyze pork belly fat from USA, Spain, Canada, Germany, Mexico, Chile and South Korea for elemental composition and isotope ratios and multivariate chemometric analyses were employed to authenticate the geographical origins of the samples. The concentrations of macroelements were in the order of potassium > phosphorus > sodium > sulfur > calcium > aluminum > zinc > iron while the trace elements were below the safe limits. The isotope ratios for 87Sr/84Sr, 52Cr/50Cr, and 71Ga/69Ga were comparatively high. Linear discriminant analysis and principal component analysis distinguished the samples to 98.2%. Lithium, strontium, arsenic, chromium, vanadium, manganese, nickel, and cadmium were considered to be adequate descriptors for pork origin authentication.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical LettersSame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207