Nutritional Profile and Carbohydrate Characterization of Spray-Dried Lentil, Pea and Chickpea Ingredients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many consumers know that pulses are nutritious, long preparation times are frequently a barrier to consumption of lentils, dried peas and chickpeas. Therefore, a product has been developed which can be used as an ingredient in a wide variety of dishes without presoaking or precooking. Dried green peas, chickpeas or lentils were soaked, cooked, homogenized and spray-dried. Proximate analyses were conducted on the pulse powders and compared to an instant mashed potato product. Because the health benefits of pulses may be due in part to their carbohydrate content, a detailed carbohydrate analysis was carried out on the pulse powders. Pulse powders were higher in protein and total dietary fibre and lower in starch than potato flakes. After processing, the pulse powders maintained appreciable amounts of resistant starch (4.4%-5.2%). Total dietary fibre was higher in chickpeas and peas (26.2% and 27.1% respectively) than lentils (21.9%), whereas lentils had the highest protein content (22.7%). Pulse carbohydrates were rich in glucose, arabinose, galactose and uronic acids. Stachyose, a fermentable fibre, was the most abundant oligosaccharide, making up 1.5%-2.4% of the dried pulse powders. Spray-drying of cooked, homogenized pulses produces an easy to use ingredient with strong nutritional profile.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".