MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1890431950

STABILIZATION OF OAT GROATS BY INFRARED TREATMENT

2004· article· en· W1890431950 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicronizationMoistureInfraredMaterials scienceWater contentPeroxidaseChemistryComposite materialEnzymeBiochemistryParticle sizeOptics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Micronization (infrared heating) with a lab-scale micronizer was studied as an alternative method of heat treatment for oat groats. The objective of the study was to determine the optimum infrared heat processing conditions that would inactivate lipolytic enzymes without burning the oat groats. Prior to micronization, the oat groats were tempered to 28% moisture content. Two micronization protocols were examined: (i) where the surface temperature of the groats was controlled by spraying with water (spraying tests) and (ii) where the temperature of the oat groats was controlled by restricting the infrared intensity (voltage control tests). Processing conditions were evaluated based on negative peroxidase results for both protocols. Either protocol could be used to inactivate peroxidase, but the temperatures at the end of processing were higher for the spraying test (157n161 o C) than the voltage control test (137n155 o C). The final moisture contents for both

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrobial Inactivation MethodsFrench-language works237,207