Comparative Studies on the Physicochemical and Sensory Properties of Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) and Melon (Citrullus vulgaris) Seed Flours Used in “EGUSI” Soup Preparation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>A comparative study on the physicochemical and sensory properties of watermelon (<em>Citrullus lanatus</em>) and melon (<em>Citrullus vulgaris</em>)<em> </em>seed flours in food preparation were investigated. A composite flour containing equal parts of watermelon seed flour and melon seed flour were prepared. Egusi soups were prepared from the melon seed flour; watermelon seed flour and a combination of the two flours in equal proportions. Sensory properties of the three soups were evaluated. The results of the investigation showed that the equal proportions of watermelon/melon seed flours had higher crude protein of 27.73% and crude fat of 47.85% than the water melon seed and melon seed flours. There was no significant difference (P&gt;0.05) in water absorption, foam capacity, viscosity and least gelation properties of the melon seed flour compared to the 50:50 flour sample. The sensory properties showed no significant difference (P&gt;0.05) in appearance, taste, thickness and overall acceptability of egusi soup from melon seed flour and 50:50 flour sample. Therefore watermelon seed flour can be used to replace 50% melon seed flour in the preparation of egusi soup</p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it