MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936418632 · doi:10.17221/18/2018-rae

Comparative kinetic analysis of convective and vacuum dried Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. cladodes

2019· article· en· W2936418632 on OpenAlexaff
Anirban Dey, Somya Singhal, Prasad Rasane, Sawinder Kaur, Navneet Kaur, Jyoti Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Agricultural Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsCentennial College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCladodesFicusHorticultureKinetic energyBotanyMillCactusChemistryPhysicsBiologyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Opuntia ficus-indica (Linnaeus) Miller more usually known as fodder palm or nopal belongs to family Cactaceae. In the present study, the drying behavior of the O. ficus-indica cladodes was observed. The study concentrates on comparatively studying two types of commercial drying methods viz., forced convective drying (tray drying) and vacuum drying to dry nopal cladodes at three different temperatures viz. 40, 50 and 60°C. The equilibrium moisture contents for forced convective drying was achieved at 540-720 min and for that of vacuum drying at 600-840 min. Three mathematical drying models for thin layer drying viz. Page, Lewis and Henderson-Pabis model were evaluated for both convective drying and vacuum drying. Statistical parameters such as the coefficient of determination (R2), root mean square error and reduced χ2 were used to fit the models. Page model was found to be satisfactory for both forced convective and vacuum drying of the nopal cladodes at 40 and 50°C respectively. Among these, two drying methods, forced convective drying method was found to be more suitable than the vacuum drying method for nopal cladodes on the basis of drying time and statistical parameters.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Agricultural EngineeringSame topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207