MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020948118 · doi:10.1094/cc-82-0574

SME‐Arrhenius Model for WSI of Rice Flour in a Twin‐Screw Extruder

2005· article· en· W2020948118 on OpenAlexaff
Hanwu Lei, R. Gary Fulcher, Roger Ruan, Bernhard van Lengerich

Bibliographic record

VenueCereal Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtrusionDie swellPlastics extrusionArrhenius equationAbsorption of waterChemistryActivation energyStarchKineticsThermodynamicsMaterials scienceComposite materialFood sciencePhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We have modeled a rice extrusion process focusing specifically on the starch gelatinization and water solubility index (WSI) as a function of extrusion system and process parameters. Using a twin‐screw extruder, we examined in detail the effect of screw speed (350–580 rpm), barrel temperature, different screw configurations, and moisture content of rice flour on both extrusion system parameters (product temperature, specific mechanical energy [SME], and residence time distribution [RTD]) and extrudate characteristics (expansion, density, WSI, and water absorption index [WAI]). Changes in WSI were monitored to reveal a relationship between the reaction kinetics during extrusion and WSI. Reaction kinetics models were developed to predict WSI during extrusion. WSI followed a pseudo first‐order reaction kinetics model. It became apparent that the rate constant is a function of both temperature and SME. We have developed an adaptation of the kinetic model based on the Arrhenius equation that shows better correlations with SME and distinguishes data from different screw configurations. This adaptation of the model improved predictability of WSI, thereby linking the extrusion conditions with the extruded product properties.

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 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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCereal ChemistrySame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207