Application of Polished‐Graded Wheat Grains for Sourdough Bread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Flours obtained by a specific polishing process were used to prepare sourdough and bread. Three fractions designated C‐1 (100–90%), C‐5 (60–50%), and C‐8 (30–0%) were studied. The pH, total titratable acidity levels, and buffering capacity of sourdoughs made from polished flours were significantly different from those of the control sourdough with No. 1 Canada Western Red Spring (CW), and they provided sourdough breads with better qualities than that of CW. The growth of lactic acid bacteria and yeast in polished flour sourdoughs were significantly accelerated during fermentation over that in CW sourdough. Higher maturation of polished flour sourdoughs softened the hardness of mixed dough. The intricate network of honeycomb structure gluten and uneven surface of starch granules were distinctly observed in SEM images. Substitutions of C‐5 or C‐8 sourdoughs for CW significantly increased the loaf volume and softened breadcrumbs more than CW sourdough. Flour qualities of polished flours such as suitable acidity and good buffering capacity caused by the bran fraction were effective for better growth and longer life of yeast in the dough during fermentation. Therefore, application of polished flours in sourdough bread would improve rheological properties of dough and bread as compared with CW sourdough.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".