Scientific Findings on the Quality of River Buffalo Meat and Prospects for Future Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this review are to detect scientific findings and areas of opportunity in the study of river buffalo meat from primary production through commercialization and to establish future areas of research linked to each step of the meat supply chain to strengthen and improve the production and quality of buffalo meat in the future. Recent studies show that buffalo meat is healthy and that the prevalence of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases is not related to intramuscular fat consumption. The current grand demand for food constitutes an ongoing challenge for agricultural production. Of course, this demand includes meat, but the animal species traditionally destined for human consumption are no longer capable of satisfying requirements. This review detected gaps in studies of the alimentary systems of this species (including its digestive tract) and a paucity of analyses designed to determine the optimum slaughtering age. Identifying –and correcting– practices that foster contamination, reduce the shelf life of buffalo meat, and suggest appropriate conservation and packaging methods during commercialization are two additional pending concerns. This study concludes that marketing buffalo meat represents a great challenge for producers and researchers, one that requires a multi- and interdisciplinary approach that examines in detail every step of the productive chain.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".