MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737316228 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.13525

Water sorption and cooking time of red kidney beans (<i>Phaseolus vulgaris</i> L.): part <scp>II</scp> – mathematical models of water sorption

2017· article· en· W2737316228 on OpenAlexafffund
Fuji Jian, Digvir S. Jayas, Paul G. Fields, N. D. G. White

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAgricultural Engineering and Mechanization
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsSorptionThermal diffusivityPhaseolusFinite element methodMoistureWater contentThermodynamicsMathematicsChemistryMaterials scienceHorticulturePhysicsComposite materialGeotechnical engineeringAdsorptionEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Empirical, semi‐theoretical and finite element method (FEM) models were developed to simulate the water sorption of kidney beans. The data of bean moisture content and 1 D swelling ratios obtained in Part I were regressed at different soaking times, and these regression models were used to update the boundary condition and calculate the node coordinates of the FEM model. The developed models were used to calculate the effective water diffusivity (Deff). The developed new empirical model, which considered the soaking temperature and pretreatment history of beans, was the best‐fit equation. The trend of the Deff calculated by the semi‐theoretical model was inconsistent with the water sorption of the beans. The Deff value predicted by the FEM was from 10−3 to 10−7 m2 s−1 and it decreased with the increase in soaking time. There was no significant difference between the moisture contents measured and predicted by the FEM.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicAgricultural Engineering and MechanizationFrench-language works237,207