Effects of Flour Strength, Baking Absorption, and Processing Conditions on the Structure and Mechanical Properties of Bread Crumb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to determine the effects of flour type, baking absorption, variation in sheeting, and dough proofing time on the density, crumb grain (visual texture), and mechanical properties (physical texture) of bread crumb. All response variables were measured on the same bread crumb specimens. Bread loaves were prepared by a short‐time bread‐making process using four spring wheat flours of varying strength. After crumb density measurement, digital image analysis (DIA) was used to determine crumb grain properties including crumb brightness, cell size, cell wall thickness, and crumb uniformity. Tensile tests were performed on bone‐shaped specimens cut from the same bread slices used for DIA to obtain values for Young's modulus, fracture stress, fracture strain, and fracture energy. Proof time had the most profound influence on the bread with substantial effects on loaf volume, crumb density, crumb brightness, and grain, as well as crumb mechanical properties. Increasing proof time resulted in higher loaf volume, lower crumb density and brightness, coarser crumb with fewer and larger cells with thicker cell walls, and weaker crumb tensile properties. Varying flour type also led to significant differences in most of the measured crumb parameters that appeared to correspond to differences in gluten strength among the flour samples. With increasing flour strength, there was a clear trend to increasing loaf volume, finer and more uniform crumb grain, and stronger and more extensible bread crumb. Increasing baking absorption had virtually no effect on crumb structure but significantly weakened crumb strength and increased fracture strain. In contrast, varying the number of sheeting passes had a minor effect on crumb cellular structure but no effect on mechanical properties. The experimental data were consistent with a cause‐effect relationship between flour strength and the tensile strength of bread crumb arising as a result of stronger flours exhibiting greater resistance to gas cell coalescence, thereby having fewer crumb defects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".