MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039239900 · doi:10.1080/10942912.2014.1001072

Physicochemical, Rheological, and Thermal Properties of Six Types of Honey from Various Floral Origins in Tunisia

2015· article· en· W2039239900 on OpenAlexaff
Amel Boussaid, Moncef Chouaibi, Leila Rezig, Rafik Missaoui, Francesco Donsı̀, Giovanna Ferrari, Salem Hamdi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Properties · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBee Products Chemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRheologyThermalFood scienceBotanyChemistryMaterials scienceBiologyThermodynamicsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study was undertaken to determine the physicochemical, rheological, and thermal properties of six types of Tunisian honey samples from various floral origins (eucalyptus, orange, thyme, mint, rosemary, and horehound). All the honey samples exhibited non-Newtonian behavior at a shear rate ranging between 0.01 and 500 s–1, with the highest levels of viscosity (µ) being observed for thyme, followed by eucalyptus, rosemary, mint, orange, and horehound honeys, respectively. The effect of temperature on the dynamic viscosity of the samples followed an Arrhenius-like pattern, with activation energy values ranging from 21.23 to 34.91 kJ/mol. The results from oscillatory rheology analysis also revealed that the loss modulus predominated over the storage one in the whole frequency range. As determined by differential scanning calorimetry, the glass transition (Tg) and melting temperatures of the Tunisian honey samples varied between –41.55 and –47.06 °C and between 197.9 and 221.1°C depending on their sugar compositions, respectively.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food PropertiesSame topicBee Products Chemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207