Characteristics of Cookies Supplemented with Oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.) Flour. I Physicochemical, Sensorial and Textural Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oleaster flours (OFs) were produced from two different genotypes (G1 and G2) by two different methods (oleaster mesocarp flour: OMF and oleaster mesocarp flour with pericarp: OMFP). In this study, OFs were used to replace wheat flour in the cookie formulation (control) at the levels of 5,10,15,20 and 25% (w/w). OFs supplementation increased total dietary fiber (TDF) contents and decreased caloric contents of cookies compared to the control. Spread ratio (SR) values of cookies with OFs increased. Cookies with OFs were found to be larger in diameter than control cookies. Increasing of OMF and OMFP levels in the cookies led to darker appearance of the cookies than the control. In general, hardness tends to increase as the level of OMFs and OMFPs increased in the cookies. According to sensory analysis, overall acceptance of cookies were found the best at control sample. However, panelists liked all cookies with OFs moderately or slightly. Especially, the usage of 5% for OMFs and OMFPs in cookie formulation gave satisfactory results in terms of acceptability. The present study demonstrated that considerable nutritive and functional improvement could be attained by the addition of OFs to cookie formulation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".