MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391516895 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1s.2119

A Review of Recent Advances in Plant-Based Meat Processing

2023· review· en· W4391516895 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anmol Uppal, Anapurba Kanjilal, Monisha Nath, Tanmoy Das, Soumen Mondal, Saheli Ghosa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGABA and Rice Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) have been discussed in the food and research communities for decades, but have recently become a hot topic. To determine future research opportunities for PBMA and to investigate the current state of scientific research, the factors that led to its development, its history, the key technologies required for production, and the resulting consumer attitudes are discussed. Concerns about the environment, human health, and animal welfare have been driving factors behind the development of PBMA. PBMA improves functional characteristics and sensory characteristics. There is a continued need for improvements in consumer acceptance of PBMA, but it remains unsatisfactory. Environmental concerns, human health concerns, and animal welfare concerns all contributed to the promotion of PBMA development.

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.483
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.082 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicGABA and Rice ResearchFrench-language works237,207