MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132341982 · doi:10.1080/07373930600626545

Osmotic Dehydration of Apple Cylinders: I. Conventional Batch Processing Conditions

2006· article· en· W2132341982 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDrying Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Drying and Modeling
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsmotic dehydrationThermal diffusivityMoistureVolume (thermodynamics)Materials scienceCylinderDiffusionThermodynamicsChromatographyChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Mass transferMathematicsComposite materialGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osmotic drying was carried out, with cylindrical samples of apple cut to a diameter-to-length ratio of 1:1, in a well-agitated large tank containing the osmotic solution at the desired temperature. The solution-to-fruit volume ratio was kept greater than 30. A modified central composite rotatable design (CCRD) was used with five levels of sucrose concentrations (34–63°Brix) and five temperatures (34–66°C). Kinetic parameters weight reduction (WR), moisture loss (ML), solids gain (SG) were considered. A polynomial regression model was developed to relate moisture loss and solids gain to process variables. A conventional diffusion model involving a finite cylinder was also used for moisture loss and solids gain, and the associated diffusion coefficients were computed. The calculated moisture diffusivity ranged from 8.20 × 10−10 to 24.26 × 10−10 m2/s and the solute diffusivity ranged from 7.82 × 10−10 to 37.24 × 10−10 m2/s. Suitable ranges of main parameters were identified for OD kinetics further study.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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