Nonuniform microwave heating of ready-to-eat chicken pies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manickavasagan, A., D.S. Jayas and R. Vadivambal. 2009. Nonuniform microwave heating of ready-to-eat chicken pies. Canadian Biosystems Engineering/Le genie des biosystemes au Canada. 51: 3.39 3.44. The temperature rise and distribution in ready-to-eat (RTE) chicken pie after microwave heating in three domestic ovens were studied. The RTE chicken pie was placed at seven different locations (on turntable, at centre; turntable, at edge; no turntable, at center; and no turntable, at corners (1, 2, 3 and 4)) inside the microwave cavity and subjected to microwave treatment. The surface temperature of the pie was measured by an infrared thermal camera, and the internal temperature was measured by three thermocouples. The mean internal temperature was lower than the mean surface temperature at all locations in the cavity. An irregular heating pattern with hot and cold regions was observed on the surface and inside the pie. Nonuniformity (DT, the difference between maximum and minimum temperatures) was in the range of 31.6 to 130.58C on the surface and 10.7 to 76.18C inside the pie. The nonuniformity on the surface of the pie was significantly lower when the product was placed on the turntable. But the location of the pie in the microwave cavity did not have significant effect on internal nonuniformity.
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".