Microwave-Osmotic Dehydration of Cranberries under Continuous Flow Medium Spray Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microwave-osmotic dehydration of cranberries was evaluated under continuous flow medium spray (MWODS) conditions after some pretreatments. A central composite rotatable design was used with three input variables at five levels (temperature, 33°C–67°C; sucrose concentration, 33°B–67°B; and contact time, 5–55 min). Responses were moisture loss (ML), solids gain (SG), and weight reduction (WR) as well as color and texture parameters. The responses were related to process variables using response surface methodology and statistical analysis: each model was tested for lack of fit to assure nonsignificance (P>0.05) and each process variable was tested for significance (P<0.05 or P<0.0001) . Temperature was found to have the most prominent effect as it was significant with all drying (ML, SG, and WR) and quality (hardness and chewiness) parameters, while contact time was found to be significant with ML and WR. Concentration wasn’t found to be significant for any response. Increasing skin pretreatment severity generally promoted SG but had little effect on ML. The exception was chemical peeling, which favored ML but had no effect on SG. Overall, MWODS enables food dehydration in a much faster period of time than conventional osmotic dehydration (COD), while specifically promoting moisture loss over solids gain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".