MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044709623 · doi:10.1039/c0lc00230e

Microfluidics for food, agriculture and biosystems industries

2011· review· en· W2044709623 on OpenAlexafffund
Suresh Neethirajan, Isao Kobayashi, Mitsutoshi Nakajima, Dan Wu, Saravanan Nandagopal, Francis Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueLab on a Chip · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersResearch ManitobaManitoba Health Research Council
KeywordsMicrofluidicsBiotechnologyAgricultureFood processingFood industryBiochemical engineeringFood safetyNanotechnologyEngineeringBiologyFood scienceEcologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microfluidics, a rapidly emerging enabling technology has the potential to revolutionize food, agriculture and biosystems industries. Examples of potential applications of microfluidics in food industry include nano-particle encapsulation of fish oil, monitoring pathogens and toxins in food and water supplies, micro-nano-filtration for improving food quality, detection of antibiotics in dairy food products, and generation of novel food structures. In addition, microfluidics enables applications in agriculture and animal sciences such as nutrients monitoring and plant cells sorting for improving crop quality and production, effective delivery of biopesticides, simplified in vitro fertilization for animal breeding, animal health monitoring, vaccination and therapeutics. Lastly, microfluidics provides new approaches for bioenergy research. This paper synthesizes information of selected microfluidics-based applications for food, agriculture and biosystems industries.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations241
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLab on a ChipSame topicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationFrench-language works237,207