MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047992382 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.12608

Molecular structure and granule morphology of native and heat-moisture-treated pinhão starch

2014· article· en· W2047992382 on OpenAlexaff
Vânia Zanella Pinto, Khalid Moomand, Nathan Levien Vanier, Rosana Colussi, Franciene Almeida Villanova, Elessandra da Rosa Zavareze, Loong‐Tak Lim, Álvaro Renato Guerra Dias

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do SulConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMaterials scienceCrystallinityStarchAmorphous solidGranule (geology)Scanning electron microscopeChemical engineeringComposite materialFood scienceCrystallographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pinhão seed is an unconventional source of starch and the pines grow up in native forests of southern Latin America. In this study, pinhão starch was adjusted at 15, 20 and 25% moisture content and heated to 100, 110 and 120 °C for 1 h. A decrease in λ max (starch/iodine complex) was observed as a result of increase in temperature and moisture content of HMT. The ratio of crystalline to amorphous phase in pinhão starch was determined via Fourier transform infra red by taking 1045/1022 band ratio. A decrease in crystallinity occurred as a result of HMT. Polarised light microscopy indicated a loss of birefringence of starch granules under 120 °C at 25% moisture content. Granule size distribution was further confirmed via scanning electron microscopy which showed the HMT effects. These results increased the understanding on molecular and structural properties of HMT pinhão starch and broadened its food and nonfood industrial applications.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207