MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The one-humped camel: The animal of future, potential alternative red meat, technological suitability and future perspectives

2024· preprint· en· W4400537393 on OpenAlex

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

VenueF1000Research · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Diversity and Health Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationBreedChinaGeographyBiotechnologyRed meatBiologyEcologyFood scienceEnvironmental healthMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p>The 2020 world population data sheet indicates that world population is projected to increase from 7.8 billion in 2020 to 9.9 billion by 2050 (Increase of more than 25%). Due to the expected growth in human population, the demand for meats that could improve health status and provide therapeutic benefits is also projected to rise. The dromedary also known as the Arabian camel, or one-humped camel (<ns3:italic>Camelus dromedarius</ns3:italic>), a pseudo ruminant adapted to arid climates, has physiological, biological and metabolic characteristics which give it a legendary reputation for surviving in the extreme conditions of desert environments considered restrictive for other ruminants. Camel meat is an ethnic food consumed across the arid regions of Middle East, North-East Africa, Australia and China. For these medicinal and nutritional benefits, camel meat can be a great option for sustainable meat worldwide supply. A considerable amount of literature has been published on technological aspects and quality properties of beef, lamb and pork but the information available on the technological aspects of the meat of the one humped camel is very limited. Camels are usually raised in less developed countries and their meat is as nutritionally good as any other traditional meat source. Its quality also depends on the breed, sex, age, breeding conditions and type of muscle consumed. A compilation of existing literature related to new technological advances in packaging, shelf-life and quality of camel meat has not been reviewed to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, this review attempts to explore the nutritional composition, health benefits of camel meat, as well as various technological and processing interventions to improve its quality and consumer acceptance. This review will be helpful for camel sector and highlight the potential for global marketability of camel meat and to generate value added products.</ns3:p>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.259 · 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