MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015361453 · doi:10.5864/d2020-003

Surface microbiology of the electronic menu in 
all-you-can-eat sushi restaurants in Toronto, Ontario

2020· article· en· W3015361453 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Destiny Lam, Melissa T. Moos, Richard Meldrum

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanitationHealth hazardPublic healthBusinessEnvironmental healthHazardAdvertisingMedicineBiologyNursingEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of electronic menus within the food industry is rapidly expanding. Currently, the role of electronic menus as a vehicle for pathogens has not been explored within the restaurant setting. This preliminary study was conducted to assess the hygienic cleanliness of electronic menus and identify if their use in all-you-can-eat (AYCE) sushi restaurants may pose a public health hazard. Five AYCE sushi restaurants in Toronto, Ontario, with electronic menus were randomly selected and were visited twice by the researcher and a public health inspector. A total of 30 electronic menus were sampled using 3M hydrated sponges with buffered peptone water broth and tested for E. coli and total coliforms. All electronic menus tested negative for E. coli although four electronic menus showed presence of total coliforms. The findings from this study suggest the current use of tablets as electronic menus in AYCE sushi restaurants may be less threatening to the safety of the public than previously thought. However, it is important for restaurants to be aware of the potential for electronic menus to serve as a fomite, and proper sanitation procedures should be monitored and enforced to maintain cleanliness.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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