Physicochemical and Structural Characteristics of Flours and Starches from Waxy and Nonwaxy Wheats
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
ABSTRACT A waxy spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) genotype was fractionated into flour and starch by roller and wet‐milling, respectively. The resultant flour and starch were evaluated for end‐use properties and compared with their counterparts from hard and soft wheats and with commercial waxy and nonwaxy corn ( Zea mays L.) starches. The waxy wheat flour had exceptionally high levels of water absorption and peak viscosity compared with hard or soft wheat flour. The flour formed an intermediate‐strength dough that developed rapidly and was relatively susceptible to mixing. Analysis by differential scanning calorimetry and X‐ray diffractometry showed waxy wheat starch had higher gelatinization temperatures, a greater degree of crystallization, and an absence of an amylose‐lipid complex compared with nonwaxy wheat. Waxy wheat and corn starches showed greater refrigeration and freeze‐thaw stabilities than did nonwaxy starches as demonstrated by syneresis tests. They were also similar in pasting properties, but waxy wheat starch required lower temperature and enthalpy to gelatinize. The results show analogies between waxy wheat and waxy corn starches, but waxy wheat flour was distinct from hard or soft wheat flour in pasting and mixing properties.
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