<scp>ANN</scp> ‐based modelling of peppermint flavour encapsulation process with ultrasound approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Encapsulation has great potential for preserving the flavour and health benefits of bioactive compounds. Hence, in the previous study, an attempt was made to encapsulate peppermint flavour in a gum arabic (GA) shell. To further understand the effect of a wide range of parameters, in the present study, artificial neural networks (ANNs) are developed. To predict the effect of various parameters on the encapsulation process, networks are developed with a back‐propagation algorithm. Input parameters for the ANN are flavour concentration, GA concentration, spray dryer temperature and feed flow rate to the spray dryer. The encapsulation process is evaluated in terms of encapsulation efficiency, product yield, and particle size. To predict all outputs simultaneously, a combined model is developed. The results showed that the combined model has similar accuracy as that of the individual model and also helps to save on processing time. For the combined model, the best prediction performance is obtained with 5‐4‐3 ANN architecture exhibiting an R 2 value of 0.9991, and corresponding MSE values of 0.000 54, 0.000 63, and 0.000 61 for encapsulation efficiency, product yield, and particle size, respectively. This indicates that the developed ANN model is capable of predicting the encapsulation process. The interpolation and extrapolation ability of the developed network is also evaluated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".