A Comparison of Fresh Pork Colour Measurements by Using Four Commercial Handheld Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of different low-cost instruments to measure pork colour in comparison to Minolta spectrophotometers and industry subjective standards. Canadian pork colour standards and commercial meat (252 loin chops and 46 tenderloins) were measured using two Minolta (CM 700D) spectrophotometers, four Nix sensors (two Nix Pro II and two Nix QC), and four Spectro devices (two Spectro 1 and two Spectro 1 Pro). Using Bland-Altman plots, all hand-held devices revealed similar performance on colour coordinates, except for the Nix Pro II, which had more variability on a* value, and Spectro 1 Pro on b* value, when compared to Minolta measurements. Low RSD values (< 5%) were obtained from repeated measurements on Canadian colour standards. The trend of colour coordinates on colour scores (0–6) were similar for all four commercial instruments, except for a* from Nix Pro and b* from Spectro 1. The correlation coefficients between subjective standards and colour coordinates from the Nix and Spectro devices were slightly higher than the Minolta spectrophotometers. Even though Nix and Spectro 1 series instruments generated different absolute colour coordinate values on meat samples, these pocket-size instruments presented great reliability to measure pork surface colour. However, operational limitations of the instruments, such as the internal calibration time between samples for the Spectro 1 series, should also be considered.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".