MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001896317 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.3730

Pulsed electric field treatment of carrots before drying and rehydration

2009· article· en· W2001896317 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

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlanchingChemistryFood scienceDistilled waterChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: In this study the effects of pulsed electric field (PEF) pretreatment were evaluated during drying and rehydration of carrots. Carrots pretreated with an electric field intensity of 1 kV cm −1 (capacitance 0.5 µF, 20 pulses) or 1.5 kV cm −1 (capacitance 1 µF, 20 pulses) as well as blanched (100 °C, 3 min) carrots were used for the study. Following pretreatment, samples were oven dried at 70 °C and then rehydrated in distilled water (1:30 w/v) at room temperature (24 ± 1 °C). RESULTS: PEF pretreatment increased the drying rate of carrots. However, the rehydration rate of PEF‐pretreated carrots was lower than that of blanched carrots. There were no colour differences between PEF‐pretreated and blanched carrots before drying and after rehydration. In terms of texture, PEF‐pretreated carrots were firmer than blanched carrots. PEF pretreatment reduced the activity of peroxidase by 30–50%, while blanching completely inactivated the enzyme (>95%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results suggest that PEF could be an effective pretreatment during drying and rehydration of carrots. Copyright © 2009 Society of Chemical Industry

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.248 · 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