Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Butter is one of the oldest forms of preserving fat components of milk. Its manufacture dates back to some of the earliest historical records. The evolution of the art of buttermaking has been associated with the development and use of equipment. The construction of creaming and buttermaking equipment in the eighteenth century led to the appearance of the barrel churn. Creaming was at first done by a method called shallow pan. This was followed by a deep‐setting system. This shortened process time and produced a better quality cream. In 1879, cream separators for fully continuous operation were produced. The Babcock test assisted in the development of the butter industry. This test determines the percentage of fat in milk and cream. Other developments included the use of pasteurization, the use of pure cultures of lactic acid and bacteria, and the use of refrigeration. Multiple butterfat products include butter oils, anhydrous butterfat, butterfat–vegetable oils, and fractionated butterfats. Preservation of butterfat today involves the processing of butterfat to anhydrous butter oil. Shelf life is improved because the butter oil is hermetically packaged under nitrogen. Recent times have seen a decline in the consumption of butter but this situation is being somewhat reversed more recently. This decline contradicts all historical patterns for butterfat consumption. Reasons for decline are noted. This article provides data on chemical composition, marketing, technology, processing, quality, legal restrictions, and uses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.422 | 0.213 |
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".