MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160389309

Mechanical dewatering of chopped alfalfa using an experimental piston-cylinder assembly

2000· article· en· W2160389309 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandeep Sinha, S. Sokhansanj, W. J. Crerar, Wen Yang, Lope G. Tabil, M.H. Khoshtaghaza And R.T. Patil

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian agricultural engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPolysaccharides Composition and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDewateringWater contentDry matterPulp (tooth)ChemistryPulp and paper industryMaterials scienceComposite materialAnimal scienceBiologyGeotechnical engineeringEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sinha, S., Sokhansanj, S., Crerar, W.J., Yang, W., Tabil, L.G., Khoshtaghaza, M.H. and Patil, R.T. 2000. Mechanical dewatering of chopped alfalfa using an experimental piston-cylinder assembly. Can. Agric. Eng. 42:153-156. Experiments were conducted to investigate the quantity and quality of the chopped alfalfa pulp and juice extracted in a piston-cylinder assembly. Singleand doublemacerated alfalfa chops at an initial moisture content of 75.7% (wet mass basis) were pressed under constant or increasing pressures up to 20 MPa. The pressed pulp and the juice were analyzed for the contents of dry matter, protein, and β-carotene. Approximately 52% of the total water content was removed at pressures higher than 4 MPa. The pressure required to extract extra juice from already pressed pulp increased exponentially. The juice had on average solids content of 1012% (dry mass basis). On a dry matter basis, there were no reductions in either protein content or β-carotene in the pulp.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian agricultural engineeringSame topicPolysaccharides Composition and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207