MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1185933072 · doi:10.3233/bsi-2012-0013

Effect of heat processing methods on spectral images of biological tissues (yellow canola seed protein) using advanced synchrotron-based infrared technique

2012· article· en· W1185933072 on OpenAlexafffund
Peiqiang Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Spectroscopy and Imaging · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBrookhaven National LaboratoryMinistry of Agriculture - SaskatchewanUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsCanolaSynchrotronRoastingChemistryFood scienceAmideMaterials scienceBiochemistryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to use the synchrotron-based SR-IMS imaging technique to study heating effect on protein molecular imaging of yellow canola seed tissues. The heating methods included the control (raw), autoclaving at 120°C for 1 h and dry roasting at 120°C for 1 h. The spectral images were carried out from outside to inside of the yellow seed tissues under functional groups of amide I at ca. 1650 cm −1 and amide II at ca. 1550 cm −1 . The results showed protein amide I and II spectral features were affected by heating methods. The heat processing induced changes in protein secondary structure profile. Different processing had different impact on protein secondary structure profile. The spectral images of the yellow seed tissues were different among the control, autoclaved and dry heated treatments. Future study is needed to confirm such changes with a large number of seed samples and compare the response to different heat-related processing between yellow canola seed (with thin seed coat) and dark-brown canola seed (with thick seed coat).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Spectroscopy and ImagingSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207