MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimization of a spray drying process for flaxseed gum

2001· article· en· W2087169387 on OpenAlexaff
B. Dave Oomah, Giuseppe Mazza

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMicroencapsulation and Drying Processes
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpray dryingProcess engineeringMaterials scienceProcess (computing)Pulp and paper industryMathematicsChemistryChromatographyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Spray drying of flaxseed gum was optimized using response surface methodology (RSM). Water seed ratio (7–20), feed temperature (25–100 °C) and outlet temperature (60–110 °C) were the factors investigated with respect to yield, rheological characteristics (apparent viscosity, dynamic viscosity, storage G′ and loss G″ moduli), colour and cyanogenic glycoside contents of the spray-dried flaxseed gum. Optimization of the spray drying process was performed to achieve maximum yield and functionality (rheological properties) of flaxseed gum. Water : seed ratio and outlet temperature were the two major factors affecting the response variables of the gum. The highest yield of spray dried flaxseed gum was obtained at a water : seed ratio of approximately 18 L kg−1. Optimization for high yield led to the production of gums with low viscosities. Maximum stationary points for gum yield and minimum stationary point for rheological characteristics were observed at relatively high water : seed ratio (˜18), combined with moderate inlet feed temperature (61.7 °C) and high outlet temperature (92 °C).

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations52
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicMicroencapsulation and Drying ProcessesFrench-language works237,207