Optimization of Process-Control, Size Reduction and Thermal Treatment of Animal By-Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal by-products (ABP) from slaughterhouses go through a process known as rendering to economically recover the protein sources. Common raw material treatment technologies include reduction of the size of raw material particles and thermal treatment with pressure or sub-pressure impact. Often the thermal treatment is a long-term process that lasts up to 120 minutes – and is the primary disadvantage of known solutions because hot processing influences the natural properties of proteins contained in the raw materials rendering them less valuable. To maximize the efficiency of heat treatment and fractionation operations on ABP it is necessary to optimally design the technological processes to fit within the specific requirements of the particular heat treatment application. The size reduction was performed in four stages in the present study and the fineness of material reached was 0.01…10 mm depending on the type of crushing. The treatment time which ensures the full penetration of heat into the meat-bone material was determined for fine grinded material 15…20 seconds, for small grinded material 0,5…2 minutes, for medium grinded material 5…10 minutes and for coarse grinded material up to one hour. The information gained from the study will enable more accurate determination of heating times corresponding to the processed material properties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".