Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changrue, V. and V. Orsat. 2009. Osmotically dehydrated microwave vacuum drying of carrots. Canadian Biosystemes Engineering/Le genie des biosystemes au Canada. 51: 3.11 3.19 Osmotic dehydration prior to drying was able to remove free water, which accounts for around 50% of the product’s moisture. The combination of osmotic and microwave vacuum drying was investigated. The advantage of microwave vacuum drying is that it provides faster drying times with a low-temperature process. Since solid gain from osmotic agents might cause a decrease in diffusivity of the osmotically dehydrated product and lower qualities of dried product, it is important to know the effects of osmotic treatment prior to microwave vacuum drying. Two levels of microwave input power (1 and 1.5W/g) and three power modes (continuous, 45 s on/15 s off and 30 s on/30 s off) were studied at an absolute pressure of 8 kPa for the microwave vacuum drying of carrots. Drying kinetics, energy consumption, and quality in terms of water activity, shrinkage, rehydration capacity, color characteristics, and sensory evaluation were studied. Empirical models were established to fit the observed data. In general, osmotic dehydration was able to decrease drying time and energy consumption. Less shrinkage and improved appearance were the advantages in terms of quality. Page’s model showed the best fit among the tested models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".