MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801816492 · doi:10.1002/aocs.12056

Grain Thin Stillage Protein Utilization: A Review

2018· review· en· W2801816492 on OpenAlexafffund
Kornsulee Ratanapariyanuch, Youn Young Shim, Daniel Wiens, Martin J. T. Reaney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Oil Chemists Society · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProteins in Food Systems
Canadian institutionsGenome PrairieUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsStillageCoproductIngredientDistillers grainsBiorefineryPulp and paper industryEthanol fuelAnimal feedChemistryEnvironmental scienceFood scienceBiofuelBiotechnologyBiologyMathematicsEngineeringFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ethanol production from grains produces wet grain and thin stillage (TS) as major coproducts. The grain fuel ethanol industry is massive, producing 58 billion L per year in the USA alone, and TS production is four to five times this volume. In short, through its coproducts TS and distiller's grains, the ethanol industry is a major supplier of inexpensive protein. However, obtaining this protein can be costly. In spite of its high water content, TS is typically concentrated by evaporation and then sold as distiller's solubles, or combined with wet grain and dried for use as an animal feed ingredient called “distillers’ dried grains with solubles”. The processes used for protein concentration and TS clarification are reviewed, including the addition of clarifying agents, centrifugation, dissolved air and anoxic gas flotation, filtration, size exclusion, and biorefinery processes. Biorefinery processes are being developed that will lower the energy inputs required for evaporation while greatly improving protein concentration. The protein concentrates could potentially be used in higher‐quality animal feed or even in food products.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Oil Chemists SocietySame topicProteins in Food SystemsFrench-language works237,207