MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195889342 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.15307

Application of biopreservatives in meat preservation: a review

2021· review· en· W3195889342 on OpenAlexaff
Baojing Ren, Wei Wu, Olugbenga P. Soladoye, Kathrine H. Bak, Yu Fu, Yuhao Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsAlberta Crop Industry Development FundGovernment of CanadaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFood spoilageRaw materialFood scienceMeat spoilageRaw meatPreservativeBiotechnologyBiologyBacteriaEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary As a highly perishable food, raw meat, if not preserved, will spoil due to the altered metabolism, microbial activity and external factors during storage. Biopreservatives, as a new type of preservatives, are characterised by nontoxicity, extensive source and good application prospects in the raw meat. This review discusses the factors responsible for the spoilage of raw meat, recaps the spoilage bacteria in the raw meat and summarises the major antibacterial mechanism of various biopreservatives. Moreover, application of various biopreservatives in the preservation of raw meat is emphatically reviewed. In addition, some existing challenges for application of biopreservatives and their prospective development are also discussed. The present work provides a theoretical reference for application of various biopreservatives in different types of raw meat for shelf life extension.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207