Effects of Different Solar Drying Methods on Quality Attributes of Dried Meat Product (Kilishi)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This study was conducted to evaluate the efficiency of four methods of sundrying kilishi after preparation. They included Direct Sundrying Method (DSM) as control, Gujarat Energy Development Agency Method (GEDAM), National Institute of Oceanography Method (NIOM) and Kwatia Drying Method (KDM) each of the methods constituted a treatment viz, A, B, C and D. Meat (Beef) weighing 640 g was purchased and used for this study. The meat was divided into 4 equal parts of 160 g per treatment. They were sliced into length between 0.17 and 0.20 cm in thickness and dried between 4 and 5 hours to reduce the moisture to at least 40% before slurry infusion. The slurry ingredient components were ground and mixed to form a paste. Semi-dried meat were immersed in the slurry for one hour and later stabilized by roasting on charcoal fire for 5 minutes and later dried out in drying media tested in this study. The yield, chemical and sensory properties of kilishi were determined. The results showed that method B gave the highest (P &lt; 0.05) yield of kilishi, chemical attributes as well as sensory properties of kilishi followed by method C. It is suggested that method B and C be developed and produced in commercial quantity for use in drying kilishi in the tropics due to their high efficiency.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".