Restoring Functionalities in Chicken Breast Fillets with Spaghetti Meat Myopathy by Using Dairy Proteins Gels
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 use of caseinate, whole milk powder, and two whey protein preparations (WP; 2% w/w) was studied in minced meat made with normal breast (NB), and ones showing spaghetti meat (SM). SM is an emerging myopathy known for muscle fiber separation and lower protein content, costing $100s of millions to the industry. Using SM without dairy proteins resulted in a higher cooking loss (SM: 3.75%, NB: 2.29%; p < 0.05), and lower hardness (SM: 29.83 N, NB: 34.98 N), and chewiness (SM: 1.29, NB: 1.56) compared to NB. Using dairy proteins, except WP concentrate and WP isolate, significantly improved yield and increased hardness. Adding WP isolate to SM resulted in a similar texture profile as NB samples without dairy proteins (34 and 35 N hardness; 0.22 and 0.24 springiness; 1.57 and 1.59 chewiness values, respectively). Adding caseinate and whole milk to SM showed a more substantial effect of improving water-holding capacity, increasing hardness, gumminess, and chewiness compared to adding WP; i.e., adding caseinate and milk powder resulted in higher values for those parameters compared to NB without additives. Overall, it is shown that dairy proteins can be added to SM to produce minced poultry meat products with similar or higher yield and texture profiles compared to using normal breast fillets.
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) | 0.001 | 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