MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heating Conditions and Bread‐Making Potential of Substandard Flour

2001· article· en· W2080855443 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Gélinas, Carole McKinnon, N. Rodrigue, Diane Montpetit

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceWheat flourChemistryRice flourFinenessBread makingSoy flourRaw material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Heating weak bread flours (commercial cookie flour; commercial stone‐milled bread flour; Fundulea, a weak bread cultivar) at 80°C for 15 min had a positive effect on bread volume ( P < 0.05). This positive effect was best seen when ascorbic acid was removed from bread formulation. Crumb springiness and fineness of grain, but not crumb hardness, were significantly improved after flour heating; cohesiveness improved with heated cookie flour ( P < 0.05). After heating, flour a‐amylase content was lower; dough‐mixing stability of cookie flour doubled to 7.1 min but dropped from 18.0 to 4.8 min with standard bread flour. Heating offers possibility to upgrade substandard flour for bread‐making applications, especially in oxidant‐free dough system.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207