MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327992581 · doi:10.1515/1556-3758.1300

Acid Diffusion in Solid Foods

2012· article· en· W2327992581 on OpenAlex
Michèle Marcotte, S Grabowski, Yousef Karimi, Paula Nijland

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

VenueInternational Journal of Food Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryDiffusionCitric acidPasteurizationAcetic acidMass transferFood additiveParticle sizeParticle (ecology)Food scienceChromatographyThermodynamicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Foods acidified to pH levels below 4.5 can be thermally treated at lower temperatures under pasteurization conditions offering reduced thermal damage to product quality. Considering practical criterion, the main objective of this study was to investigate the proper acidification procedures of solid food particles immersed in liquid solutions. This was performed by testing a variety of factors, including particle type and size, temperature, and type and concentration of acids. Furthermore, the minimum acidification time of food particles was also determined. A standard model for mass transfer (e.g. Fick’s second law) was applied. Mass diffusion coefficients (DAB) were calculated based on experimental data. Average values of DAB were in the range of 10-8 to 10-10 m2/s and in agreement with existing literature data. Minimum acidification times varied depending on the type of acid, food, and treatment temperature, and ranged between 7 to 26 min. Meat particles were slowest to acidify, and acetic acid and tomato juice acidified by citric acid were the strongest acidifying agents.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.226 · 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