MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1660164685 · doi:10.1108/bfj-04-2014-0155

Influence of palm oil, canola oil and blends on characteristics of fried plantain crisps

2015· article· en· W1660164685 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Josée Dumont, Michael Ngadi

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Food Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicEdible Oils Quality and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceBrowningChemistryDeep fryingRipeningCanolaPalm oilMoisture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to study the influence of crude palm oil (PO), canola oil (CO) and their blends on characteristics of fried plantain crisps at two different stages of ripening. Design/methodology/approach – Plantain ( Musa paradisiaca L. ) samples were peeled, sliced into 3 mm slices, blanched at 70 °C for 3 min and dried. The slices were deep fried at 180 °C for different times. Findings – There was no significant difference ( p > 0.05) in the moisture loss rate and the crispiness of the crisps produced using PO and CO. Significant differences ( p < 0.05) existed in the fat uptake and color properties of the crisps fried in the two oils. PO fried crisps absorbed 15 percent less oil in the unripe crisps samples and 21 percent less oil in the fully ripened crisps than CO. The browning index showed that the PO crisps had greater color changes than the crisps fried using CO. The difference between the crisps from 50:50 blends of PO: CO and CO was not statistically significant, while 70:30 blends improved the qualities of the crisps better than CO alone. Analysis of kinetics data showed that moisture loss, oil uptake and browning index followed a first-order kinetics model. Originality/value – Understanding the interactions between ripening and processing methods is enhanced and use of crude PO for industrial deep-fat frying is encouraged.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Food JournalSame topicEdible Oils Quality and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207