Raw material quality assessment approaches comparison in pectin production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different opportunities are explored to evaluate quality variation in raw materials from biological origin. Assessment of raw materials attributes is an important step in a bio-based production as fluctuations in quality are a major source of process disturbance. This can be due to a variety of biological, seasonal, and supply scarcity reasons. The final properties of a product are invariably linked with the initial properties of the raw material. Thus, the operational conditions of a process can be tuned to drive the product to the required specification based on the quality assessment of the raw material being processed. Process analytical technology tools which enable this assessment in a far more informative and rapid manner than current industrial practices that rely on rule-of-thumb decisions are assessed. An example with citrus peels is used to demonstrate the conceptual and performance differences of distinct quality assessment approaches. The analysis demonstrates the advantage of characterization through multivariate data analysis coupled with a complementary spectroscopic technique, near-infrared spectroscopy. The quantitative comparative analysis of three different approaches, discriminant classification based on expert-knowledge, unsupervised classification, and spectroscopic correlation with reference physicochemical variables, is performed in the same dataset context. © 2018 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada © 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 35: e2762, 2019.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".