Effect of semolina replacement with a raw:popped amaranth flour blend on cooking quality and texture of pasta
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The replacement of semolina (SEM) with raw:popped (90:10) amaranth flour blend (AFB) in pasta making at 25, 50, 75, and 100 g/100 g levels (flour basis, 14 g of water/100 g) was carried out to evaluate the effects on cooking quality and texture of the supplemented pasta samples. Significant differences on cooking quality characteristics and texture of the pasta samples were observed. The pasta solid loss increased, weight gain and firmness decreased as the AFB level increased. The semolina pasta showed the lowest solid loss (7 g/100 g) and the highest weight gain (188.3 g/100 g) and firmness (1.49 N), whereas the amaranth blend pasta was the softer (around half of the firmness of semolina pasta) and lost the higher amount of solids (11.5 g/100 g). The raw and popped AFB was suitable for increasing the nutritional quality through dietary fiber and high quality protein and even to obtain gluten-free pasta with acceptable cooking quality (solid loss of 3.5 g/100 g higher than that considered as acceptable for semolina pasta). The amaranth blend used in this study enables the partial or total replacement of wheat semolina in pastas with acceptable cooking quality and texture.
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.
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 it