MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601790610 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2017.1287660

Thermodynamics, transport phenomena, and electrochemistry of external field-assisted nonthermal food technologies

2017· review· en· W2601790610 on OpenAlexaff
N.N. Misra, Alex Martynenko, Farid Chemat, Larysa Paniwnyk, Francisco J. Barba, Anet ­Režek ­Jambrak

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrohydrodynamics and Fluid Dynamics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiochemical engineeringEmerging technologiesBioprocessNanotechnologyFood industryFood productsComputer scienceData scienceChemistryMaterials scienceEngineeringFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest in the development and adoption of nonthermal technologies is burgeoning within the food and bioprocess industry, the associated research community, and among the consumers. This is evident from not only the success of some innovative nonthermal technologies at industrial scale, but also from the increasing number of publications dealing with these topics, a growing demand for foods processed by nonthermal technologies and use of natural ingredients. A notable feature of the nonthermal technologies such as cold plasma, electrohydrodynamic processing, pulsed electric fields, and ultrasound is the involvement of external fields, either electric or sound. Therefore, it merits to study the fundamentals of these technologies and the associated phenomenon with a unified approach. In this review, we revisit the fundamental physical and chemical phenomena governing the selected technologies, highlight similarities, and contrasts, describe few successful applications, and finally, identify the gaps in research.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations154
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicElectrohydrodynamics and Fluid DynamicsFrench-language works237,207