Crack Development in Individually Quick Frozen Cut and Peel Carrots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Crack development during freezing (CDF) is one of the major challenges in individually quick frozen (IQF) cut and peel carrot processing. The effects of processing and freezer storage on crack development were examined on the cut and peel carrot variety, Sugarsnax. Carrot samples were removed from the major processing steps, the trans‐slicer, the shaper, the blancher, and the dryer, and examined for crack development by measuring percentage cracked, crack morphology, total soluble solids, moisture levels, and membrane injury index immediately after processing. These parameters were also examined following 20 wk of standard freezer storage for cut and peels. Approximately 2% of nonprocessed carrots were cracked compared to 45% of carrots after the initial trans‐slicing stage. As the processing continued, cracking decreased due to the removal of the outer epidermis to 16% of the finished product. This suggests that CDF was initiated at the 1st processing stage. Crack width and depth were 2.3 and 2.6 mm, respectively, at the trans‐slicer stage and decreased to 1.1 and 1.8 mm at the end of the line. It was found that CDF was further exacerbated by freezer storage due to inefficient water removal at the dryer stage. Crack width and depth increased to 1.5 and 3.0 mm after 20 wk for freezer storage. Root size also played a role in CDF, suggesting that larger pieces are more susceptible to crack development. Total soluble solid concentrations did not play a role in crack formation during cut and peel processing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".