<i>In situ</i> monitoring of solid fat content by means of pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry and ultrasonics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An ultrasonic technique was developed to study the crystallization process of edible fats on‐line. A chirp wave was used instead of the conventional pulser signal, thus achieving a higher signal‐to‐noise ratio. This enabled measurements to be made in concentrated systems [≈20% solid fat content (SFC)] through a 8.11‐cm thick sample without significant signal loss. Fat samples were crystallized at 20, 25, and 30°C at a constant agitation rate of 400 rpm for 90 min. The crystallization process was followed by ultrasonic spectroscopy and a low‐resolution pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer. Specific relationships were found between ultrasonic parameters [integrated response, time of flight (TF), and full width half maximum] and SFC. TF, which is an indirect measurement of the ultrasonic velocity (v), was highly correlated to SFC (r2>0.9) in a linear fashion (v=2.601 SFC+1433.0).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".