MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206261707 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.15559

Effects of red‐wine grape pomace on the quality and sensory attributes of beef hamburger patty

2022· article· en· W4206261707 on OpenAlexaff
Anisse Pereira, Hong C. Lee, R.M. Lammert, C. Wolberg, Danyi Ma, Chad E. Immoos, Federico Casassa, Iksoon Kang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPomaceFood scienceWineFlavourChemistryAntioxidant capacityTasteAntioxidant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of red‐wine grape pomaces on the quality and sensory attributes of beef hamburger patties. Both phenolic content and antioxidant activity were assessed using Syrah, Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon pomaces. Following the assessment, hamburger patties were prepared with Merlot pomace at 0%, 2% and 4% for the patty quality and sensory attributes. Grape seeds possessed significantly higher phenolics and antioxidant activities over the seedless pomace ( P < 0.05), whereas no significant difference was found for phenolics and antioxidant activities within the seeds and seedless pomaces. The patty pH decreased as the pomace was added for 2% and 4%. Colour values ( L *, a * and b *) of patties lowered as the pomace was added. Allo‐Kramer shear force and hardness values increased while cooking yield decreased ( P < 0.05) with the addition of pomace. No significant difference between control and Merlot patties was found for flavour, juiciness and colour, whereas lower sensory attributes were observed for texture, taste and overall acceptability. It is observed that the addition of fermented red‐wine grape pomace provides hamburger patties with health promoting factors such as antioxidant and other functional components, but it also provided darker, sourer and lower cooking yield.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207