Rheological study of mixed flour: wheat (Triticum vulgare), barley (Hordeum vulgare) and potato (Solanum tuberosum) for use in the preparation of bread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With wheat flour imported and domestic wheat cereals produced in the country, and the potato tuber, a rheological study was performed to determine the most suitable proportions of substitution of wheat flour imported with the latter and its feasibility for making bread. We worked in mixtures of flour, wheat CWRS # 1 (red spring wheat in western Canada) Cañicapa barley flour, wheat and potato Cojitambo Gabriela, from Ecuadorian cultures in proportions of 10, 20 and 30% (p / p). Masses from mixtures of flours were analyzed on a Brabender Farinograph, in order to determine the water absorption, development time, stability and rate of tolerance with a view to selecting the flour blends that have a behavior similar to CWRS wheat flour # 1. The best mixtures found were: wheat flour # 1 CWRS replaced with 10, 20 and 30% barley flour Cañicapa, and the mixture of wheat flour # 1 CWRS wheat flour in Cojitambo 30%. These flour mixes selected were also subjected to rheological analysis of their masses using a computer Mixolab. The breads made from flours selected were evaluated in a sensory panel. The breads more accepted by consumers were those containing 20 and 30% barley, followed by the group of those made with imported wheat with 30% wheat Cojitambo, and containing 10% of barley flour.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".