Hearth bread baking quality of durum wheat varying in protein composition and physical dough properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thirty durum wheat genotypes from ten countries of origin were grown in field plots for two consecutive years. Three of the genotypes were γ‐gliadin 42 types and the remainder were γ‐gliadin 45 types. Among the γ‐gliadin 45 types, six high‐molecular‐weight glutenin subunit (HMW‐GS) patterns were identified: 6 + 8, 7 + 8, 7 + 16, 14 + 15, 20 and 2*, 20. All the γ‐gliadin 42 genotypes contained low amounts of unextractable polymeric protein (UPP) and exhibited low gluten index values and weak gluten properties. The γ‐gliadin 45 genotypes exhibited a wide range of UPP, gluten index and dough strength. HMW‐GS 20 genotypes were generally weak, whereas HMW‐GS 6 + 8 and 7 + 8 genotypes were generally strong. When baked by a lean formulation, long‐fermentation straight‐dough hearth bread process, the durum wheat genotypes exhibited a wide range of baking quality. Loaf volume and bread attributes were strongly correlated with UPP and gluten index. Some of the genotypes exhibited bread attributes and loaf volume equal or slightly superior to those of a high‐quality bread wheat flour. However, even the strongest durum wheat genotypes exhibited inferior fermentation tolerance to the bread wheat flour, as seen by a requirement for lower baking absorption during dough handling and more fragile dough properties when entering the oven. Among the HMW‐GS groups, HMW‐GS 7 + 8 and 6 + 8 exhibited the best and HMW‐GS 20 the poorest baking quality. Farinograph, alveograph and small‐scale extensigraph properties demonstrated that a combination of dough elasticity and extensibility was needed for superior durum wheat baking performance. Copyright © 2007 Society of Chemical Industry
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".