MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920830622 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v8n2p80

Assessment of a Low Temperature Closed-Cycle Grain Drying System

2019· article· en· W2920830622 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mingjun Ma, Kurt A. Rosentrater

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Drying and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationCondenser (optics)Grain dryingHeat pumpPulp and paper industryGas compressorMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceHorticultureHeat exchangerComposite materialEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzed the drying efficiency of a prototype low temperature closed-cycle grain drying system. The main principle of this drying system was the heat pump system working as a dehumidifier. The main component of this drying equipment included a compressor, a condenser, twin evaporators, and a fan. Two drying studies (denoted as trial 1 and trial 2) were conducted to assess the overall drying performance of this low temperature drying system. To calculate the drying efficiency, the total energy consumption was divided by the amount of water removal for each trial; the drying efficiency was reported in the form of Btu/lb of water removal. We also tested corn seed germination to determine if this drying process had an effect on seed germination performance. The drying efficiency results for trial 1 and 2 were 1036 Btu/lb water removal and 869 Btu/lb water removal, respectively; compared to other on-farm drying methods this drying system had fairly high drying efficiency. The germination test results showed that this drying system had no adverse effect on germination performance.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicFood Drying and ModelingFrench-language works237,207