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 OpenAlexaff
Djamel Djenane, Mohammed Aïder

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

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 (Camelus dromedarius), 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicAnimal Diversity and Health StudiesFrench-language works237,207