Bibliographic record
Abstract
Journal of Food Research wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Their help and contributions in maintaining the quality of the journal are greatly appreciated. Journal of Food Research is recruiting reviewers for the journal. If you are interested in becoming a reviewer, we welcome you to join us. Please contact us for the application form at: jfr@ccsenet.org Reviewers for Volume 14, Number 1 Diego A. Moreno-Fernández, CEBAS-CSIC, Spain Elke Rauscher-Gabernig, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Austria Elsa M Goncalves, Instituto Nacional de Investigacao Agrária (INIA), Portugal Jose Maria Zubeldia, Clinical Regulatory Consultant for the HIV & Hepatitis C initiative at Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative, Spain Khamphone Yelithao, Souphanouvong University, Laos Lenka Kourimska, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech Republic Liana Claudia Salanta, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Romania Marie Lys Irakoze, Dedan Kimathi University of Technology, Rwanda Mehana E. E. Hamouda, Alexandria university, Egypt Rania I.M. Almoselhy, Agricultural Research Center, Egypt Rozilaine A. P. G. Faria, Federal Institute of Science, Education and Technology of Mato Grosso, Brazil
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".