MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964682966 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2013.02.0088

Seed Protein, Soaking Duration, and Soaking Temperature Effects on Gamma Aminobutyric Acid Concentration in Short‐Season Soybean

2013· article· en· W1964682966 on OpenAlexaff
Malcolm J. Morrison, Judith Fregeau-reid, Elroy R. Cober

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGABA and Rice Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarGlycinegamma-Aminobutyric acidAminobutyric acidBiologyAmino acidHorticultureAnimal scienceFood scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) is a four‐carbon, nonprotein amino acid found in soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] seed and food. The consumption of foods with high GABA concentration may be an alternative to pharmaceutical medication for hypertension, an affliction affecting one billion people. The objectives of this study were to examine the relationship between GABA and protein concentration in high, medium, and low protein soybean cultivars and to determine the relationship between soaking temperature (T) (21 or 27°C) and duration (0, 3, 6, 18, and 24 h) on L‐glutamate (L‐Glu) and GABA concentration. The high‐protein cultivar did not have significantly higher L‐Glu or GABA concentration than the medium or normal protein cultivars. Seed L‐Glu increased rapidly with soaking duration up to 8.25 h, and the 27°C soaking T resulted in higher concentrations than the 21°C T. Seed GABA concentration increased rapidly with soaking duration and peaked at 10 and 12 h for the low‐ and high‐GABA cultivars, respectively. The cultivar with the highest concentration of stored L‐Glu and GABA remained the highest after soaking. Increasing soaking duration and temperature can be used to increase the seed GABA concentration in cultivars, although this may increase processing time.

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)0.001
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 score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicGABA and Rice ResearchFrench-language works237,207