MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365519791 · doi:10.26599/fshw.2022.9250045

Effect of different drying methods on the amino acids, α-dicarbonyls and volatile compounds of rape bee pollen

2023· article· en· W4365519791 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Science and Human Wellness · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBee Products Chemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAgricultural Science and Technology Innovation ProgramChinese Academy of Agricultural SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsChemistryVacuum dryingFood scienceAmino acidFreeze-dryingChromatographyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The significant demand for high quality food has motivated us to adopt appropriate processing methods to improve the food nutritional quality and flavors. In this study, the effects of five drying methods, namely, pulsed vacuum drying (PVD), freeze drying (FD), infrared drying (IRD), hot-air drying (HAD) and sun drying (SD) on free amino acids (FAAs), α-dicarbonyl compounds (α-DCs) and volatile compounds (VOCs) in rape bee pollen (RBP) were determined. The results showed that FD significantly released the essential amino acids (EAAs) compared with fresh samples while SD caused the highest loss. Glucosone was the dominant α-DCs in RBP and the highest loss was observed after PVD. Aldehydes were the dominant volatiles of RBP and SD samples contained more new volatile substances (especially aldehydes) than the other four drying methods. Comprehensively, FD and PVD would be potential methods to effectively reduce the quality deterioration of RBP in the drying process.

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.257 · 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