MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220975448 · doi:10.22175/mmb.12473

American Meat Science Association Guidelines for Meat Color Measurement

2022· article· en· W4220975448 on OpenAlexaff
D. A. King, Melvin C. Hunt, Shai Barbut, J. Claus, Darren P. Cornforth, P. Joseph, Yuan H. Brad Kim, Gunilla Lindahl, R.A. Mancini, Mahesh N. Nair, Kjell J. Merok, Andy Milkowski, Anand Mohan, F.W. Pohlman, Ranjith Ramanathan, Christopher R. Raines, M. Seyfert, Oddvin Sørheim, Surendranath P. Suman, M.J. Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueMeat and Muscle Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsMyoglobinInstrumentation (computer programming)Association (psychology)Computer sciencePerceptionColor visionHuman–computer interactionData sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meat color is an important aspect of a consumer’s purchase decisions regarding meat products. Perceived meatcolor results from the interaction of light, a detector (i.e., human eye), and numerous factors, both intrinsic and extrinsic tothe muscle, that influence the chemical state of myoglobin. The complex nature of these interactions dictates that decisionsregarding evaluations of meat color be made carefully and that investigators have a basic knowledge of the physical andchemical factors affecting their evaluations. These guidelines were compiled to aid investigators in navigating the pitfalls ofmeat color evaluation and ensure the reporting of information needed for the appropriate interpretation of the resulting data.The guidelines provide an overview of myoglobin chemistry, perceptions of meat color, details of instrumentation used inmeat color evaluation, and step-by-step protocols of the most common laboratory techniques used in meat color research.By following these guidelines, results of meat color research may be more clearly presented and more easily replicated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0790.058

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations275
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeat and Muscle BiologySame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207