The Drawbacks and Superiorities of Using IR-Microwave System in Cake and Bread Baking: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review work tried to highlight and summarize the drawbacks and superiorities of three different heating methods commonly used for baking bread and cakes. These methods are infrared heating, microwave heating and infrared-microwave heating. The literature revealed that infrared heating method usually result in good quality food products, but the system performance is still underdeveloped to meet challenges of the current era. Whereas microwave heating method possesses superior system performance features but present many problems with the eating quality of the final food product. In order to improve both system performance and the food quality, researchers found that the infrared-microwave system is the best alternative. This system (halogen lamp-microwave) is a combination of the first two heating methods and at optimized conditions; the system can produce good quality food with better performance. Studies revealed that the good crust color formation and time saving are the superiorities, but the lower moisture content and lower specific volume are the drawbacks on using such system. The products were firmer as a result of the high moisture loss. Halogen lamp power, microwave power and baking time are found to be the major factors that affect the characteristics of the baked products. Based on the heating effects, it is possible to conclude that microwave heating is the dominant heating mechanism in halogen lamp–microwave combination system. However, this system was still be able to produce acceptable quality of baked products therefore researchers recommended IR-microwave for cake and bread baking.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".