Flavor Differences of Edible Parts of Grass Carp between Jingpo Lake and Commercial Market
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
This study investigated the flavor differences among three individual parts (abdomen, back, and tail) of Jingpo Lake grass carp (JPGC) and commercial grass carp (CGC). The growing environment and fish parts influenced the volatile compounds of the fish. The highest total contents of alcohols and ethers were found in the back of JPGC (p < 0.05). The combination of an electronic tongue and electronic nose (E-nose) could effectively distinguish the flavor differences between the different parts of JPGC and CGC by principal component analysis. Both the content of total free amino acids (FAAs) and content of amino acids contributing to the sweet and fresh flavors were higher in JPGC than CGC (p < 0.05). Among the ATP-associated products, the inosine 5’-monophosphate (IMP) contents of the back and tail of JPGC were higher (p < 0.05), but the abdomen content was lower (p > 0.05) than the respective contents in the corresponding parts of CGC. Sensory evaluation shows that JPGC had a better texture, odor, and taste, compared to CGC. Correlation analysis showed that the E-nose data and FAAs were highly correlated with the content of alcohols, aldehydes, and ethers. This study showed that the flavors of the different parts of JPGC differed significantly from those of CGC.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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