MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2557235055 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.6b03816

Protein Concentrate Production from Thin Stillage

2016· article· en· W2557235055 on OpenAlexafffund
Kornsulee Ratanapariyanuch, Youn Young Shim, Shahram Emami, Martin J. T. Reaney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsGenome PrairieUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsStillageChemistrySlurryDecantationFood scienceAcetic acidChromatographyLactic acidFermentationMicrofiltrationFreeze-dryingMaterials scienceBiochemistryMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

and induced colloid separation of fermented solution to produce a protein concentrate (PC). Protein-rich slurry (50%, db) was obtained by decanting solution or skimming floating material during or after TSF. Washing and drying processes were explored to improve protein content, extend storage life of slurry, and yield converted stillage for compound recovery. Centrifuging and washing slurry afforded a PC and clarified solution. PC protein content increased to 60% (w/w, db). The PC was dried in a spray dryer or drum dryer or tray dryer. Dried PC water activity ranged 0.23-0.30. The dried PC lysine content was low, but lysine availability (95%) was excellent. Liquid from TSF and washing was readily microfiltered. Mass recovery of protein, glycerol, 1,3-propanediol, lactic acid, acetic acid, and glycerylphosphorylcholine from combined TSF, washing, and filtration were 66, 76, 72, 77, 74, and 84%, respectively.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry→Same topicProbiotics and Fermented Foods→French-language works237,207→