Dough Microextensibility Method Using a 2‐g Mixograph and a Texture Analyzer
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 Development of a small‐scale method to measure dough extensibility, using a 2‐g mixograph and the TA.XT2 texture analyzer (TA) equipped with Kieffer rig, suitable for early‐generation wheat quality screening is presented. Three hook speeds 3.3, 7.0, and 10.0 mm/sec were tested on the TA. Only at the lower hook speed of 3.3 mm/sec were wheats, varying in quality, clearly differentiated. The ability to differentiate between wheats using the TA was compared with the Brabender Extensigraph. The sample ranking based on the resistance to extension (R max ) from the TA at a hook speed of 10.0 mm/sec correlated highly ( r = 0.99) to the ranking obtained on the extensigraph. Dough extensibility data from the extensigraph and the TA, using hook speed 10.0 mm/sec, was correlated ( r = 0.90) to loaf volume. Similarly, dough extensibility on the TA, using hook speed 3.3 mm/sec, was correlated to loaf volume ( r = 0.96). The effect of three dough water contents (farinograph absorption, farinograph absorption + 6%, and 2‐g mixograph water absorption) on physical properties of dough were evaluated by mixing the dough in a 2‐g mixograph and testing the extensibility on the TA. Dough prepared at farinograph absorption + 6% and at mixograph absorption allowed differentiation between wheats based on the resistance to extension (R max ).
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) | 0.001 | 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 it