Perspectives on the history of research on starch Part IV: On the visualization of granule architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Starch has been used over several millennia for a number of different applications. However, research on understanding this substance only spans about three centuries starting with Leeuwenhoek who observed it in 1716. This story of discovery of the molecular structure and architectural makeup of starch is chronicled in a series of six essays of which this is the fourth with a focus on visualizing the granule, its development and architecture. Since the starch granule was visualized initially, researchers focused on the content and composition of the granule and also tried to understand what they saw by way of layers, polarization, and staining properties using a microscope. Two schools of thought prevailed in the 1800s with regards to granule development. Confusion prevailed with respect to terminologies and composition through this period. The first model of the crystallized granule was proposed in the late 19th century and it was not until mid‐20th century that the blocklet and crystalline arrangement of starch was understood. However, the crystallinity and helical complex between AM and iodine continued to obscure the source of starch crystallinity during the second half of the 20th century. magnified image Please read the Editorial for more details.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".