Physicochemical and Structural Characteristics of Flours and Starches from Waxy and Nonwaxy Wheats
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".