MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137423983 · doi:10.3920/jiff2020.0145

Preliminary project design for insect production: part 3 – sub-process types and reactors

2021· article· en· W3137423983 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

VenueJournal of Insects as Food and Feed · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Process engineeringProduction (economics)Process designComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringProcess integration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a discussion about sub-processes suitable for the rearing of insect larvae on dry and semi-dry feeds. Three closely related, key aspects are dealt with as part of preliminary project design (PPD): the type of larval rearing sub-process to be employed, the reactor configuration and the operational approach to be used. A number of sub-process types and reactors are discussed. Because they are most commonly used in the industry today, all the sub-processes are ‘plug-flow’ (age stratified) and based on ‘passive’ reactors (contents moving through the reactor). Batch, semi-continuous as well as continuous sub-processes are dealt with and illustrated. Simulation to help the entopreneur chose the most appropriate type of sub-process is highly recommended.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.215 · 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