Nanotechnology: the word is new but the concept is old. An overview of the science and technology in food and food products at the nanoscale level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food scientists and technologists are actively engaged in examining and developing nanotechnologies for applications such as novel functional ingredients and nutrient delivery systems, safety testing, packaging, and authenticity/authentication at an ever-increasing pace. However, before these new products/technologies are commercialised, rigorous safety testing and risk/benefit analysis are required to ensure that public and environmental concerns are addressed. This review provides an overview of food nanoscience and technology including a brief history, education, definitions pertaining to policy and regulation, and applications. The most recent findings and advances are emphasised, focussing on bioactives' delivery. In addition, proposed directions in the area of nano-based targeting of pathogens for food safety as well as medical foods are discussed. As food nanoscience and technology has been extensively reviewed in recent years, specific case examples will be limited to those reported within the past year.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".