Suitability of Indigenous Aluminium Cans as an Alternative to Tin Cans for Fish Canning and Process Time Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LIST Of PLATES Plate.l.Overpressure autoclave.Plate.2.Food Texture Analyzer.Plate.3.(a), Empty aluminium cans.(b), Cutting tools for aluminium cans.Plate.4.(a).Different types of thermocouples.(b), Aluminium cans fitted with thermocouple.Plate.5.Aluminium cans after processing INTRODUCTIONAluminium container offers tremendous opportunities to take care of the packaging needs of the food-based industries like canned fish products.Besides the natural advantages like lightweight and corrosion resistance, the most Important merit of aluminium is its recyclability.The present study was undertaken with the following objectives in mind.~To find an alternative container to tin cans for fish canning.~To reduce the cost of production of canned fish by using indigenously manufactured aluminium cans.~To study the suitability of aluminium cans for heat processing of fish in various media.~To standardize the heat penetration characteristics (Fo value and cook value) and process time of various canned fish products in aluminium cans ~To find out the shelf life of various canned fish products processed in aluminium cans.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".