MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032653853 · doi:10.1021/jf100736m

Fractionation of Hairless Canary Seed (<i>Phalaris canariensis</i>) into Starch, Protein, and Oil

2010· article· en· W2032653853 on OpenAlexafffundabout
El‐Sayed M. Abdel‐Aal, Pierre Hucl, Carol Ann Patterson, Danielle Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsFractionationExtraction (chemistry)StarchChemistryAgronomyChromatographyComposition (language)FiberBotanyFood scienceBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canary seed is an important specialty crop in Canada. The current market for this true cereal (i.e., belonging to the family Poaceae as wheat) is limited to feed for caged birds. However, canary seed holds a promise for many food and industrial applications based on its composition. Three wet milling procedures based on ethanol (E), water (W), and alkaline (A) extractions used in different order were investigated to determine extraction efficiency and purity of starch, protein, oil, and fiber separated from hairless canary seed, a variety developed for human consumption. Highest extraction efficiencies were obtained when canary seed was defatted with ethanol and then extracted with alkali and water (EAW process). Using this process, approximately 92% pure starch, 75% pure protein, and oil were recovered from canary seed groats. The highest purity of protein, however, was obtained when canary seed was fractionated by the EWA process, that is, defatted and then extracted with water followed by alkali. Fiber component separated prior to alkaline extraction contained high amounts of nonfiber components as indicated by its yield. The EAW extraction process seems to be more promising in canary seed fractionation based on recovery and purity of components.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207