Textural Restoration of Broiler Breast Fillets with Spaghetti Meat Myopathy, Using Two Alginate Gels Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of salt-sensitive alginate (“A”) and a two-component salt-tolerant alginate system (“B”) used at a 0.5% or 1.0% level were evaluated in normal breast (NB) chicken fillets and in spaghetti meat (SM) fillets. Minced raw and cooked SM samples showed higher cooking loss (p < 0.05) and lower penetration force compared to NB meat. Both alginate systems significantly raised the penetration force in raw samples and decreased cooking loss (p < 0.05). Adding 1% of “A” or 0.5% “B” to SM, without salt, resulted in a similar penetration force as the cooked NB meat, while 1% “B” with salt resulted in a higher penetration force. Excluding salt from SM samples while adding alginate “A” or “B” improved texture profiles, but not to the same level as using NB without additives. Overall, salt, together with alginate “B”, improved the texture of SM to that of normal meat without myopathy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".