MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292866707 · doi:10.2991/absr.k.220305.047

Microwave Vacuum Drying on Fruit: A Review

2022· review· en· W4292866707 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nadilla Shintya Kusuma Wardhani, Nihayatuzain Amanda, Anjar Ruspita Sari

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in biological sciences research/Advances in Biological Sciences Research · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Drying and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrowaveVacuum dryingMaterials scienceOptoelectronicsComputer sciencePhysicsTelecommunicationsFreeze-dryingMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fruit is very perishable in the storage process and has short of shelf-life. To extend the shelf life, fruits need preservation process. Drying is generally acknowledged as a cost-effective and commonly used technique for preserving food by reducing post-harvest losses. The major challenge of drying fresh foods and agricultural products is to reduce the moisture content to an absolute minimum while preserving quality characteristics such as colour, texture, chemical components, and shrinkage. The vacuum drying technique has been explored as a possible method for generating high-quality dried food items such as fruits, vegetables, and grains. Microwave vacuum drying is a method that adopts the benefits of microwave drying and vacuum drying, especially enhancing energy efficiency in conjunction with product quality. This article reviews several studies on fruit drying using microwave vacuum drying, including cranberry, apple, dragon fruit, strawberry, Saskatoon berry, and pomegranate. Studies show that drying using microwave vacuum drying saves drying time many times over than conventional drying. The microwave vacuum drying technique can reduce undesired sensory transitions and nutrient loss caused by longer drying times or high surface temperatures. The use of microwave vacuum drying resulted in dried fruit similar to freeze-drying which did not significantly affect the color of the fruit and the phenolic content of the fruit.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.025
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0110.005
Research integrity0.0010.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.616
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.058 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in biological sciences research/Advances in Biological Sciences ResearchSame topicFood Drying and ModelingFrench-language works237,207