MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169284761 · doi:10.1081/drt-120029999

Effect of Four Drying Methods on the Quality of Osmotically Dehydrated Cranberries

2004· article· en· W2169284761 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher M. Beaudry, Vijaya Raghavan, Cristina Ratti, Timothy J. Rennie

Bibliographic record

VenueDrying Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFreeze-dryingChemistryFood scienceWater contentWater activityTasteMoistureTexture (cosmology)Chromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partially dehydrated cranberries (osmotically dehydrated) were dried to low water contents using one of following four methods: hot air drying; microwave-assisted convective drying; freeze-drying; and vacuum drying. Quality evaluation was performed on all samples, including sensory evaluation (appearance and taste), texture, color, water activity, and rehydration ratio. Hot air drying produced dried cranberries with the best visual appearance while freeze-dried cranberries had the highest rehydration ratio. The other methods presented similar rehydration ratios. There was no significant difference in color measurements and water activity. Few differences in texture were found, except for freeze-dried cranberries, which had a lower toughness compared to the other drying methods including commercially available dried cranberries. Microwave-assisted to hot air drying rate ratios increased as the moisture content decreased.

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)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations127
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrying TechnologySame topicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementFrench-language works237,207