Variation in Total and Soluble β-Glucan Content in Hulless Barley: Effects of Thermal, Physical, and Enzymic Treatments
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
Total and soluble beta-glucan content and effects of various treatments of barley grain on extractability and molecular characteristics of soluble beta-glucan were studied. Four types of hulless barley (normal, high amylose, waxy, and zero amylose waxy) from 29 registered and experimental genotypes were analyzed. For each, moisture, protein, amylose, 100 kernel weight, starch, beta-glucan (total and soluble), beta-glucanase activity, and slurry viscosity were determined. Significant differences in total beta-glucan were observed among the groups, with average values of 7. 49%, 6.86%, 6.30%, and 4.38% for high amylose, waxy, zero amylose waxy, and normal barley, respectively. The extractability of beta-glucan in high amylose barley was relatively low (20.6-29.7%) compared to that in normal (29.8-44.3%), zero amylose waxy (34.0-52. 5%), and waxy (36.7-52.7%) barley genotypes. Viscosity of barley flour slurries was affected by the content of soluble beta-glucans, beta-glucanase activity, and molecular weight of beta-glucans. Hydrothermal treatments (autoclaving and steaming) of barley had no effect on extractability of beta-glucans, but prevented enzymic hydrolysis of beta-glucans, and thereby substantially improved their molecular weight. The addition of enzymes (protease and esterase) during extraction and/or physical treatments (sonication) increased extractability of beta-glucans from barley.
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