Suitability of Ontario‐Grown Hard and Soft Wheat Flour Blends for Noodle Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study evaluated the blending of flours made from an Ontario hard red winter wheat (HWF) and an Ontario soft red winter wheat (SWF) and compared it with a commercial standard noodle flour (control) made from Canadian Western Hard Red Spring wheat to assess the impact on white salted noodle‐making performance and texture of cooked noodles. Flour characteristics, gluten aggregation, and starch pasting properties were assessed with a farinograph, GlutoPeak tester, and Rapid Visco Analyzer, respectively. The machinability of dough was evaluated with an SMS/Kieffer rig attached to a TA.XT Plus texture analyzer. Tensile and bite tests of cooked noodles were also conducted. Blending HWF with standard noodle flour decreased gluten strength and dough extensibility linearly proportional to the blend ratio, whereas a curvilinear response from blending SWF with standard noodle flour was observed. HWF demonstrated more favorable pasting properties except for lower peak viscosity for noodle making than standard noodle flour. Below a 20% blend ratio with HWF, no significant changes were seen on dough extensibility, cooking loss, tensile properties, and bite testing parameters of cooked noodles. It can be concluded that blending HWF up to a 20% level caused no significant change in the processing properties of dough and cooked noodle quality. The results also showed that the GlutoPeak tester is a sensitive tool for evaluating gluten strength in wheat flour.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".