MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415029496 · doi:10.1111/1541-4337.70310

Food Drying for Low‐Carbon and Future Food: A Review on the Sustainability of Drying Technology

2025· review· en· W4415029496 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaolong Zhong, Min Zhang, Qi Yu, Arun S. Mujumdar, Dongxing Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Drying and Modeling
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsFood processingSustainabilityFood industryResource efficiencyResource (disambiguation)Carbon footprintFood systemsLife-cycle assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food drying, as a food processing industry with a high carbon footprint, needs to adapt in the face of carbon reduction and future food trends. Through the application of classical theories on food moisture migration and drying kinetics, coupled with life cycle analysis of food drying processes, the low-carbon feasibility of drying engineering can be demonstrated; a survey of drying technologies over the last 20 years has shown a new wave of advances in food drying equipment for clean energy sources such as solar, geothermal, and biomass, with tools such as energy efficiency and monitoring enriching the drying process. The food of the future is a development of traditional and modern food products, for which new R&D trends, resource utilization, environmental load reduction, and customized production of drying technologies can provide insights. In addition, around the issue of economic efficiency of food processing, relevant recommendations for integrating cost reduction algorithms for drying processing and equipment construction are presented. This review provides useful information on carbon reduction in drying as well as trends in drying and assists in the selection of drying equipment.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food SafetySame topicFood Drying and ModelingFrench-language works237,207