Comparative analysis of domestic and foreign beverage standards and regulation indicators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective In order to promote and guide the development of beverage industrialization and standardization in China, this paper studies the management of beverage regulations and standards by international organizations and other countries, to summarize the problems and differences in domestic and foreign beverage standards, to put forward suggestions for the improvement of China's beverage quality and safety standards, and to provide references for the revision of China's beverage safety standards. Methods Comparing the standards and regulations of China, Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), the European Union, the United States, Australia/New Zealand, Canada and Korea, analyzing the categories, heavy metals, mycotoxins, microorganisms and other indicators, studying the existing problems in the current beverage standards in China, and putting forward some useful suggestion. Results The management of beverage standards in other countries is different from that in China. The formulation of food safety standards of beverage in China is relatively reasonable and basically identical to international standards. We should pay more attention to the colony count indicators, the ready-to-consume drinks, the improvement of standards in beverage categories, and the effective coordination between quality and safety standards. Conclusion China's beverage standard management system conforms to China's domestic situation. The beverage food safety standards is relatively reasonable. China should take good measures to the food safety standards and quality standards revision on beverages, and promote the healthy and harmonious development of the beverage industry.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".