SENSORY AND MICROBIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF TILAPIA FISH IN PORT-SAID MARKETS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The freshness and hygienic quality of 50 fresh Tilapia sold in Port-Said fish market were evaluated. Quality grades based on the sensory evaluation of general appearance, odor, texture and condition of eyes and gills showed that 26% of the examined Tilapia were of grade (E), the excellent quality followed by 56% of grade (A) and 18% of grade (B). The quality levels based on the microbial load, showed that the accepted percentage of samples for human consumption according to; total viable count (TVC), total coliform bacteria (TC), S.aureus count, total Vibrio spp. count and Salmonella spp. were; 80%, 56%, 94%, 100%, and 100% respectively. Salmonella could not be detected in any of the examined samples, only 6(12%) of samples have S.aureus with mean count of 5.1x101±0.114cfu/g. Coagulase positive S.aureus was further examined for their ability to produce enterotoxins and only four isolates were found to be enterotoxin type B producers. The microbiological quality of fish was markedly improved by heat treatment (boiling for 10 minutes); The TVC, TC decreased to <100cfu/g, <10 cfu/g respectively and no pathogenic bacteria (S.aureus, Salmonella and Vibrio spp.) could be detected in the treated samples.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 it