MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410547696 · doi:10.1007/s43621-025-01217-6

Review of advanced drying techniques: a path to lower greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture

2025· article· en· W4410547696 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Kaveh, Mohammad Nadimi, Feizollah Shahbazi, Jitendra Paliwal

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Sustainability · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Drying and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Winnipeg
KeywordsGreenhouse gasAgricultureEnvironmental scienceGreenhousePath (computing)Agricultural engineeringWaste managementAgronomyEngineeringComputer scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The agricultural sector has one of the largest carbon footprints among all industries due to the extensive use of fossil fuels, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides. Over the past century, agricultural mechanization has remarkably increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing to global warming and climate change. Among these gases, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is the most abundant. Drying is a crucial and widely used method for preserving agricultural products, with broad applications in the food industry. Recent advancements in drying technology offer promising alternatives that enhance product quality, reduce energy use, and mitigate GHG emissions, thus promoting environmental sustainability. This review explores some of the most promising drying techniques that will shape the future of agricultural processes. Efficient and innovative drying of agri-food products can be achieved by hybridizing conventional techniques like hot-air, microwave, infrared, fluid bed, continuum, vacuum, and refractance window drying with pre-treatments such as ultrasound (US), pulsed electric fields (PEF), blanching, and cold plasma (CP). The combined use of these modalities can decrease GHG emissions while producing high-quality, nutritionally rich products. Our synthesis of published information also proposes research and development strategies to mitigate GHGs during 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover SustainabilitySame topicFood Drying and ModelingFrench-language works237,207