MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975708497 · doi:10.1094/cchem.2004.81.6.772

Textural and Other Quality Properties of Instant Fried Noodles as Affected by Some Ingredients

2004· article· en· W1975708497 on OpenAlexaff
Li Juan Yu, Michael Ngadi

Bibliographic record

VenueCereal Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstantFood scienceChemistryStarchAbsorption of waterWater contentWheat flourStarch gelatinizationMoistureMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The effects of varying the proportion of three noodle dough components (water, gum, and starch) on the texture (maximum load and strain at break), amount of fat absorbed, and percent rehydration of instant fried noodles were studied. The Instron Universal testing machine was used to measure noodle texture, whereas quality attributes were determined using fat absorption and rehydration parameters. The results showed that changes in maximum load, strain at break point, fat absorption, and rehydration% of instant noodles depended on interactions between the ingredients. Increasing the gum content, starch content (for amounts >4% kg/kg of flour) and moisture content (35–40% kg/kg of flour) enhanced the elasticity and extensibility of cooked instant fried noodles. Addition of starch decreased fat absorption but showed mixed effect on rehydration%. The effect of gum addition at 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3% on fat absorption was significant but reduced considerably or showed a reverse effect at higher starch addition levels. Increasing moisture, and gum contents increased rehydration% of cooked instant noodles. Appropriate combinations of gum, starch and moisture contents could be used to optimize textural and quality characteristics of fried instant noodles.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCereal ChemistrySame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207