MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312374144 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.09.484

Predicting the moisture content of organic wheat in the first stage of tempering

2022· article· en· W4312374144 on OpenAlexaffabout
Loïc Parrenin, Christophe Danjou, Bruno Agard, Robert Beauchemin

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Drying and Modeling
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemperingWater contentMoistureStage (stratigraphy)Environmental scienceWheat flourYield (engineering)AgronomyMathematicsMaterials scienceChemistryFood scienceEngineeringComposite materialBiologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tempering process is a key process in wheat flour milling that requires proper adjustments to achieve a desired level of flour quality and yield. The present study aims to develop a tool to predict the moisture content of organic wheat at the end of the first stage of tempering. A study case was conducted at a mill located in the Quebec region to build and compare flour models: ordinary least squares (OLS), LASSO, RIDGE and ElasticNet. The models are based on wheat properties (initial wheat moisture content, wheat protein content and wheat temperature), process parameters (targeted wheat moisture content, wheat flow rate, water flow rate, wheat quantity and resting time) and tempering conditions (water quantity and day weather). The increase of wheat moisture achieved during the first tempering stage varies between 0% and 5%. The results indicated that ElasticNet model outperformed others in determining the final increase of wheat moisture with an average prediction errors of 0.21%.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicFood Drying and ModelingFrench-language works237,207