MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022258932 · doi:10.22175/mmb.9875

Enzymatically Treated Spent Cellulose Sausage Casings as an Ingredient in Beef Emulsion Systems

2020· article· en· W3022258932 on OpenAlex
Claudio Gabiatti, S. M. Vasquez Mejia, Loong‐Tak Lim, B. M. Bohrer, Rafael C. Rodrigues, Carlos Prentice

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMeat and Muscle Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorGovernment of Canada
KeywordsIngredientEmulsionChemistryCelluloseThermal stabilityResponse surface methodologyFood scienceChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this research was to incorporate an ingredient obtained from spent cellulose casings in beef emulsion modeling systems. The test ingredient (residual sausage casing, RSC) was procured from cellulose sausage casings following thermal processing of the sausages. The casings were cleaned of contaminants before a combination of enzymatic hydrolysis and high-speed homogenization was conducted in an effort to improve the functional attributes of the cellulose casing residue (i.e. recycling/upcycling of the spent casings). The beef emulsion modeling systems used in this study consisted of 57.30% beef, 20% water, 15% olive oil, 6% of the combination of RSC and an all-purpose binder, 1.45% NaCl, 0.40% sodium tri-polyphosphate, 0.15% sodium nitrite cure, and 0.0035% sodium erythorbate. The overlying goal here was to test the ability of the RSC ingredient for partial or full replacement of binder ingredients in a beef emulsion system. Therefore, the beef emulsion model systems were prepared with five different levels of the RSC ingredient as a substitution to an all-purpose binder ingredient (0% RSC, 25% RSC, 50% RSC, 75% RSC, and 100% RSC). This study was independently replicated in its entirety three times in a completely randomized design and data were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed statistical model. Emulsion samples were tested for proximate composition, cooking loss, emulsion stability, texture profile analysis, and instrumental color. Overall, technological properties and emulsion stability were lost as the level of the RSC ingredient increased, but low inclusion levels of the RSC ingredient (25% RSC) may help maintain acceptable levels of yield and emulsion stability, while improving the sustainability of the sausage production system.

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.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.211 · 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