4.7 Article

Food modelling strategies and approaches for knowledge transfer

Journal

TRENDS IN FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 120, Issue -, Pages 363-373

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2022.01.021

Keywords

Scientific software; Software re-use; Modelling; Model exchange; Collaborative modelling; Education

Funding

  1. COST Action [CA15118]
  2. European Cooperation in Science and Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper reviews the methods, best practices, hurdles, and limitations of knowledge transfer through software and embedded mathematical models in the food domain. The study identifies three key aspects: publishing digital objects on the web, building transferrable software through collaboration with experts and stakeholders, and developing food engineers' modeling skills through the use of software and models.
Background: Scientific software incorporates models that capture fundamental domain knowledge. This software is becoming increasingly more relevant as an instrument for food research. However, scientific software is currently hardly shared among and (re-)used by stakeholders in the food domain, which hampers effective dissemination of knowledge, i.e. knowledge transfer. Scope and approach: This paper reviews selected approaches, best practices, hurdles and limitations regarding knowledge transfer via software and the mathematical models embedded in it to provide points of reference for the food community. Key findings and conclusions: The paper focusses on three aspects. Firstly, the publication of digital objects on the web, which offers valorisation software as a scientific asset. Secondly, building transferrable software as way to share knowledge through collaboration with experts and stakeholders. Thirdly, developing food engineers' modelling skills through the use of food models and software in education and training.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available