MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1566015334 · doi:10.1002/9781118504956.ch3

Key Considerations in the Selection of Ingredients and Processing Technologies for Functional Foods and Nutraceutical Products

2014· other· en· W1566015334 on OpenAlexaff
Ashutosh Singh, Valérie Orsat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutraceuticalKey (lock)Selection (genetic algorithm)Biochemical engineeringComputer scienceBiotechnologyFood scienceChemistryEngineeringBiologyArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased interest in nutraceutical science in the late 1990s steered development of novel extraction techniques, including microwave-assisted extraction (MAE), supercritical fluid, pulsed electric field, and accelerated solvent extraction. Introduction of these techniques shortened extraction time, increased yield, and reduced organic solvent consumption and contamination. This chapter considers the theoretical and technical advancements of some of these processing techniques, and also provides a comprehensive analysis of operational and regulatory challenges faced in their application in food and pharmaceutical industries. Over the years, the list of nutraceutical compounds identified and analyzed for potential health benefits has been growing steadily. Scientific evidences have been provided to support the concept of “food as medicine.” The design of suitable processing and delivery systems for nutraceuticals and functional food components of interest is still a growing field; extensive research will continue to be required to develop effective delivery systems and new functional foods and nutraceutical 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207