MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characterization of Apple Juice Foams for Foam‐mat Drying Prepared with Egg White Protein and Methylcellulose

2006· article· en· W2019446960 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPickering emulsions and particle stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
KeywordsRheologyEgg whiteConsistency indexFoaming agentApparent viscosityMaterials scienceViscosityGelatinChemistryChromatographyComposite materialChemical engineeringFood scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Intrinsic stability and rheological properties of apple juice foams for foam mat drying were studied. Foams were prepared from clarified apple juice by adding various concentrations of 2 foaming agents of different nature: a protein (egg white at 0.5%, 1%, 2%, and 3% w/w) and a polysaccharide (methylcellulose at 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.5%, 1%, and 2% w/w), and whipping at different times (3, 5, and 7 min). In general, egg white foams were less stable but showed a higher degree of solidity (stronger structures), higher foaming capacity, and smaller bubble average diameter than methylcellulose foams. Foam stability increased with increasing concentrations of either methylcellulose or egg white. Increasing whipping times increased the stability of egg white foams only. Stability parameters (maximum drainage and drainage half‐time) were correlated in terms of rheological parameters of the continuous phase (consistency index and apparent viscosity at 30/s, respectively). The correlations ( R 2 = 0.766 and 0.951, respectively) were considered acceptable because they were independent of whipping time and foaming agent nature and concentration. Results on foam rheology obtained by dynamic and vane tests were in agreement, but the latter method was more sensitive. Optimal concentrations to obtain the most solid foams (0.2% methylcellulose and 2% to 3% egg white, respectively) were the same concentrations required for maximum foaming capacity. Based on this observation and previous models, an empirical expression was proposed to predict the degree of solidity (in terms of inverse phase angle and yield stress) only as a function of foam structural properties (air volume fraction and average bubble size). The model proved to be satisfactory to fit experimental results ( R 2 = 0.848 and 0.975, respectively), independently of whipping time, foaming agent nature and concentration.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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