MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045813419 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2013.09.04

Mineral Content in Dehydrated Mango Powder

2013· article· en· W2045813419 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. H. Leghari, Saghir Ahmed Sheikh, M. B. Kumbhar, A.F. Baloch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPotassiumDehydrationMagnesiumSodiumChemistryCalciumFood scienceMineralogyHorticultureBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study was carried out to explore mineral content in dehydrated mango powder made from immature green stage fruits. For the purpose, two type of slices from peeled and unpeeled fruits of four commercial grown varieties viz. Desi, Sindhri, Langra and Chaunsa were prepared. These slices were categorized into three groups A, B and C. In group A, slices were kept in controlled conditions in electric cabinet chamber (dehydrator) at 65oC temperature, while in group B, slices were dried by open sun drying method using muslin cloth over the cots at (43 ± 5 oC) and in group C, slices were kept in wooden glass dehydrator at (48 ± 4 oC).
 The statistical analysis reveals highly significant differences for all main factors including varieties, dehydration methods, type of mango powder and their interactions. Chaunsa had the highest mean calcium (389.54 mg kg-1), potassium (912.07 mg kg-1) and magnesium (90.92 mg kg-1). However, only sodium was observed more in variety Langra (467.59 mg kg-1). On the basis of dehydration methods, mean calcium (407.06 mg kg-1) and magnesium (90.11 mg kg-1) content were observed more in wooden glass drying method as compared to rest of the drying methods. The sodium (511.83 mg kg-1) and potassium (811.35 mg kg-1)content were recorded the highest in open sun drying method. The powder made from fruits without peel was observed more in all mineral content including sodium, calcium, potassium and magnesium.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementFrench-language works237,207