Sensory Profiles of Bread Made from Paired Samples of Organic and Conventionally Grown Wheat Grain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian hard red spring wheat cultivar "Park" was grown in 2005 in Edmonton, AB, Canada on both conventionally and organically managed land, situated less than 1 km apart. Grains from the paired wheat samples were compared for cereal-grain-quality attributes. For sensory analysis, organically and conventionally produced wheat grains were milled into flour and baked into 60% whole wheat bread. Color, texture, taste, and aroma attributes of bread were compared using the sensory technique of descriptive analysis. Organic grain contained more wholemeal protein than conventional grain (P < or = 0.05), but both were greater than 14% protein, indicating excellent grain quality for yeast-leavened bread. Mixograph analysis revealed that conventional flour produced stronger bread dough than organic flour (P < or = 0.05). Visual observation confirmed these findings as conventional flour produced larger bread loaf volume. Fourteen sensory attributes were generated by the descriptive analysis panel. No differences were observed for flavor, aroma, or color attributes (P > 0.05), but the panel perceived the organic bread to be more "dense" in texture (P < or = 0.05) with smaller air cells in the appearance of the crumb (P < or = 0.05) than conventional bread.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".