Mechanical compaction of flour: the effect of storage temperature on dough rheological properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cenkowski, S., Dexter, J.E. and Scanlon, M.G. 2000. Mechanical compaction of flour The effect of storage temperature on dough rheological properties. Can. Agric. Eng. 42:033-041. The effects of storage temperature, storage time, and compaction of compressed flour on functional and rheological properties of dough were investigated for flour milled from No. 1 Canadian Western Red Spring wheat. Untreated (loose) flour and flour that had been mechanically compacted to a 55% volume reduction were stored for one year at 20, 30, and 40°C. An imitative rheological test (capillary rheometry) indicated that compaction of 75% extraction rate flour had a marked effect on the magnitude of the flow behaviour index (n). This effect was not observed in 83% extraction rate flour. Storage time had a substantial effect on all samples, increasing the n values by 5 to 15%. A similar effect was observed for consistency coefficient. Alveograph and farinograph results indicated that the main factor affecting the oxidation of compacted and loose flours during storage was the storage temperature. Compaction of flour appeared to have a slight mitigating effect on changes to alveograph curves during storage. Storage of flour up to 30°C caused changes in dough rheological parameters, indicating a dough strengthening effect. Storage of flour at 40°C resulted in tight inextensible dough that would be difficult to process in bakeries. Capillary extrusion tests confirmed that the flow behaviour index was noticeably affected by storage temperature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".