MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994005221 · doi:10.1080/10408391003749942

Proteins of<i>Brassicaceae</i>Oilseeds and their Potential as a Plant Protein Source

2011· review· en· W1994005221 on OpenAlexaff
Janitha P.D. Wanasundara

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytase and its Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrassicaceaeCanolaBrassicaRapeseedSinapisBrassica rapaStorage proteinBiologyOleosinPlant proteinBotanyBiotechnologyFood scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the commercially cultivated Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) plants, Brassica juncea, Brassica napus, Brassica rapa, and Sinapis alba store significant amounts of oil and protein in the seed. At present, Brassica seed proteins are primarily used for livestock feeding based on the nutritional value. The point of curiosity is whether the present knowledge on the protein structure, biochemical characteristics, nutritive value, and the recovery processes are inadequate to develop Brassica proteins into a usable plant protein source or these proteins are of substandard for uses beyond animal nutrition applications. Cruciferin (11S) and napin (2S) are the predominant storage proteins of Brassicaceae seeds that contribute to different properties and functions. A gamut of information is available on the chemistry, nutritional value, as well as the functionality in foods, and associated non-protein components of canola/rapeseed storage proteins. The intention of this article is to critically review what is known about the predominant storage proteins of commercially produced Brassicaceae seeds relative to the above aspects and identify the knowledge gaps.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations215
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicPhytase and its ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207