Effect of three kinds of natural preservative cocktails on vacuum‐packed chilled pork
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of three different natural preservatives on the microbial profile, the total volatile base nitrogen (TVB‐N), and biogenic amine contents of vacuum‐packed chilled pork during storage at 4°C. Solution A comprised of tea polyphenols, chitosan, spice extract, propolis, and nisin. Solution B comprised of clove extract, cassia bark extract, ginger juice, garlic juice, and lactobacillus fermentation solution. Solution C consisted of only lactobacillus fermentation solution. The results indicated that solution A was a good natural preservative with higher bacteria inhibitory effect and higher sensory score than B and C. Besides the effect on appealing color, solution B could inhibit microbial activity although its inhibition effect was not as good as solution A. Thus, solution A could be used as a good preservative in industry. Solution C could inhibit the initial growth of Pseudomonas and partially inhibited the growth of Enterobacteriaceae ; however, the content of putrescine in the pork treated with solution C was as high as 30.14 ± 2.89 mg/kg after 21 days of storage at 4°C. Hence, solution C is not an ideal preservative for vacuum‐packed chilled pork.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it