Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) Education Division Competition 2011 Winner—Cocoa Powders: Are They All Created Equal?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: One of the core competencies in the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) education standards is for students to achieve competency in communication skills (that is, oral and written communication, listening, interviewing, and so on). According to the IFT guidelines, by the time students graduate, they should not only be able to search for and condense information, but also be able to “communicate technical information to a nontechnical audience.” The Education Division of IFT sponsors a writing competition for undergraduate students to bring attention to and promote the development of communication skills. It has been shown that employees/entry‐level scientists who can communicate technical and nontechnical concepts succinctly will be in a better position to achieve management status after entering the work force. Monetary prizes are awarded to the authors of the top three papers. A revised version of the winning entry is published in the Journal of Food Science Education for dissemination to a world‐wide audience.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.018 |
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".