MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008561377 · doi:10.1081/drt-200054239

Pore Development and Moisture Transfer in Chicken Meat during Deep-Fat Frying

2005· article· en· W2008561377 on OpenAlexaff
Lamin S. Kassama, Michael Ngadi

Bibliographic record

VenueDrying Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicEdible Oils Quality and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoistureThermal diffusivityPorosityDeep fryingChemistryMass transferGas pycnometerWater contentMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MineralogyComposite materialThermodynamicsChromatographyFood scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in the structure of food products play important role in the various mass transfer processes during deep-fat frying. The relationship between moisture loss and pore formation were investigated at frying oil temperatures of 170, 180, and 190°C and frying times up to 900 s. Porosity and pore structure were characterized by using mercury intrusion porosimetry and helium displacement pycnometer. Moisture transfer in the samples was modeled using Fick's law and effective moisture diffusivity was computed from experimental data. Pore formation changes significantly (P < 0.01) in time as modulated by frying oil temperature. A peak pore fraction of 0.283 (after 360 s of frying), 0.238 and 0.220 (after 900 s of frying) at frying temperatures 190, 180 and 170°C, respectively was observed. Effective moisture diffusivity of 5.4 to 6.9 × 10−9 m2 s−1 and activation energy of 20 kJ/mol was obtained for the frying oil temperatures. Changes in pore structure influenced moisture diffusivity and oil uptake. Eighty-four percent of the pores are capillary pores, hence moisture transfer increased.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations37
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrying TechnologySame topicEdible Oils Quality and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207