MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200497122 · doi:10.3390/foods11010046

A Three-Stage Solidification Model for Food Particles

2021· article· en· W4200497122 on OpenAlexaff
Seshasai Srinivasan

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Chemistry and Fat Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrystallizationTemperingDrop (telecommunication)Materials scienceMechanicsHeat transferConvectionThermodynamicsComposite materialMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A three-stage solidification model for food droplets has been implemented in a computational fluid dynamics code. It comprises of an initial cooling stage that is based on the principles of convective heat transfer. This is followed by the solidification period that is initiated once the droplet cools to a phase change temperature. Finally, when the droplet is completely solidified, the tempering phase begins where the droplet cools to the temperature of the ambient air. The model has been validated with respect to the experimental data for cocoa butter. Additional simulations were made in which the crystallization behavior of the cocoa butter droplets in relation to the droplet size, ambient air temperature and the relative drop-gas velocity was investigated. It was found that the crystallization time is exponentially related to the droplet size. Further, it increased with the ambient temperature, but decreased with the relative drop-gas velocity. Overall, the results suggest operating at the extreme values of the process parameters, requiring high amount of energy, to minimize the crystallization time. It was concluded that there is a need for optimizing the operating conditions of the powder production process to minimize the energy requirement of the system while maintaining a reasonable crystallization time.

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 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 score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicFood Chemistry and Fat AnalysisFrench-language works237,207