A novel two‐step process to produce high‐quality basil flavoured chicken powder: Effect of ultrasonication followed by microwave vacuum and hot air drying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this experimental investigation was to develop a novel two‐step process for production of high‐quality chicken powder infused with basil. The first step consists of ultrasonication of an aqueous chicken pieces mixed with chopped basil leaves to enhance extraction of basil flavour and also pretreat the chicken microstructure to intensify the drying kinetics in the second step. The drying was carried out using microwave vacuum followed by hot air. The results showed that the drying time of chicken was the shortest (110 minutes) after US 40 minutes. In terms of product quality, the best rehydration (136.18%), the lowest hygroscopicity (3.84%) and the best colour of basil chicken powder were obtained after US 40 minutes. In the aspect of flavour addition, the content of linalool, estragole and eucalyptol in the chicken powder treated by US 40 minutes was the highest, and these three compounds were the main flavour substances of basil. At the same time, the content of some substances with bad smell, such as benzaldehyde, was greatly reduced after adding basil flavour. The overall quality of chicken powder produced by this novel process was found to be superior to that of commercially available spray‐dried chicken powder.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".