MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992278955 · doi:10.13031/2013.6199

TECHNICAL NOTES: NEAR EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE CONTENT VALUES FOR HULLLESS OATS

2001· article· en· W1992278955 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R. Hulasare, M. N. N. Habok, D. S. Jayas, N. D. G. White

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Engineering in Agriculture · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Drying and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEquilibrium moisture contentHysteresisWater contentSorptionMoistureAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryMaterials scienceMathematicsComposite materialChromatographyAdsorptionPhysicsGeotechnical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sorption characteristics of hullless oats were obtained by thin layer drying (TLD) and equilibrium relativehumidity (ERH) methods. For the TLD method, oats were at initial moisture contents of 11, 16, and 22% [dry basis (db)] andthe air was conditioned to obtain relative humidities of 27, 37, 48, 61, 68, 69, 75, 88, and 93% at temperatures from 15 to35C. For the ERH method, low (7.6 to 8.7% db) and high (19.6 to 21.2% db) initial moisture content samples were used attemperatures from 15 to 35C. A significant difference exists between the values of equilibrium moisture content (EMC calledapparent hysteresis) obtained by two methods. Apparent hysteresis was 0.68 to 1.06 and 0.46 to 3.62 percentage points forthe TLD and ERH methods, respectively. High apparent hysteresis in the ERH method is attributed to the fact that it failedto attain EMC in 2024 h as is suggested in the literature. Additional tests for extended time for ERH method narrowed theapparent hysteresis, indicating that true EMC values were not obtained by the ERH method.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.011

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Engineering in AgricultureSame topicFood Drying and ModelingFrench-language works237,207