MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postbiotic Bioactive Packaging Systems: A Review

2023· review· en· W4323667591 on OpenAlex
Roya Abedi Soleimani, Seyed Mohamad Javad Shokouhian, Jalil Houshyar, Nader Khani, Soheila Abachi, Payam Gonbari Milani, Elnaz Panahi, Aziz Homayouni Rad

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Nutrition & Food Science · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersStudent Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsFood spoilageProbioticFood scienceActive packagingShelf lifeFood productsFood packagingChemistryBiotechnologyBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: A bioactive containing packaging system is not only a traditional protective structure for a food product but also offers additional health-benefiting properties. Postbiotics (nonbiotics) are metabolites produced by probiotic microorganisms that have numerous health benefits. The safety and non-toxicity of postbiotics and their capability to prevent the growth of food spoilage microbes are the significant features of postbiotics (cell-free supernatants) in using these components in food manufacturing. In this comprehensive review, authors discuss the characteristics of postbiotics, different types and sources of postbiotics, their application in active packaging and the possibilities of their application in increasing the shelf-life of products with active packaging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.264 · 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