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 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 · 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

Abstract 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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.062
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