MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984127675 · doi:10.1080/07373937.2019.1690502

Machine learning in drying

2019· article· en· W2984127675 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDrying Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Drying and Modeling
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Computer scienceSoftwareMachine learningProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceIndustrial engineeringProcess engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although very important for analysis of drying processes, physics-based models are limited in terms of their prediction ability and in most cases are unsuitable for real-time process control and optimization of industrial drying. In this paper, we provide an overview of the machine learning (ML) techniques and the state-of-the-art ML applications in drying of food and biomaterials. The applications include but not limited to data-driven models, nonlinear control and multi-objective optimization. The advantages of integration of ML with machine vision for real-time observation of product quality and fine-tuning control strategies are briefly discussed. Future research should focus on the integration of ML software tools with sensors to measure process and product variables. In addition, the drying research community should contribute towards building of open-source datasets, which is extremely important to leverage the power of ML algorithms. Integration of sensors, process analysis and software engineering will enable the development of “intelligent” drying systems.

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.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.192 · 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