A Comparative Study Between the McGill #2 Laboratory Mill and Commercial Milling Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The degree of similarity between rice milled in a McGill #2 laboratory mill and commercial milling processes was evaluated using eight physical, physicochemical, and end‐use properties. There was no statistical difference between the two milling systems with respect to color parameters L* and a*, final viscosity, texture, and end‐use cooking properties (α = 0.05). Overall, the kernel dimensions of length, width, and thickness were less in the McGill #2 laboratory‐milled rice than the same rice milled commercially. The incidence of bran streaks and peak viscosity values were each higher when the rice sample was milled commercially in 27, and 28, respectively, of the 29 samples by means comparison. The decrease in kernel dimensions and incidence of bran streaks were attributed to the more aggressive nature of the single‐pass, batch milling system of the McGill #2 laboratory mill as compared with multipass, continuous milling systems that are used commercially. Finally, as surface lipid content (SLC) decreased, L* increased and a*, b*, and the incidence of bran streaks decreased for both milling systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".