MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125160163 · doi:10.18280/mmep.121214

An Investigation on a Theoretical Model for Predicting a Cassava Peeler’s Useful Flesh Recovery

2025· article· W7125160163 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles Olawale Ogunnigbo, Lodewyk Willem Beneke, Christiaan Coenrad Oosthuizen

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCassava research and cyanide
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTshwane University of Technology
KeywordsFleshYield (engineering)Component (thermodynamics)Selection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a predictive model for estimating the useful flesh recovery of cassava during the peeling process.By employing a dimensional analysis approach, the model identifies key factors that influence the effectiveness of cassava peelers.Our findings demonstrate a strong correlation between experimental and predicted results, achieving a coefficient of determination (R 2 ) of 0.9754 with a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.01, indicating high accuracy.The model highlights several optimal variables, such as tuber size, peel thickness, and friction coefficients, which significantly impact the recovery of useful flesh.These insights are crucial for improving the design and efficiency of cassava peeling machines, ultimately reducing waste and enhancing productivity in cassava processing.Incorporating this model into engineering practices allows designers to optimize peeling performance, paving the way for more efficient cassava processing solutions.This research underscores the importance of predictive modeling in agricultural engineering, providing valuable tools for enhancing food production systems.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicCassava research and cyanideFrench-language works237,207