MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094996472 · doi:10.1021/jf9908244

Solvent Effects on the Crystallization Behavior of Milk Fat Fractions

2000· article· en· W2094996472 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda J. Wright, Sara E. McGauley, Suresh S. Narine, Wendy M. Willis, Robert W. Lencki, Alejandro G. Marangoni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Chemistry and Fat Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrystallizationMilk fatChemistrySolventFood scienceChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The high- and medium-melting fractions of milk fat (HMF and MMF, respectively) were crystallized in the presence of various solvents, including the low-melting fraction of milk fat (LMF), canola oil (CO), hexane, and ethyl acetate. Choice of solvent was shown to have a strong influence on phase behavior and crystallization kinetics. Dilution and solubilization effects were observed for all the blends. More solids were formed in the HMF and MMF blends with LMF than with CO, and complexes were formed between the milk fat fractions possibly because of molecular complementarity. Solids were slightly higher for the more polar ethyl acetate than for hexane. Crystallization proceeded more rapidly in the presence of LMF and ethyl acetate than in the presence of CO and hexane, respectively. According to the Hildebrand equation, HMF and MMF were ideally soluble in LMF and CO. X-ray diffraction spectroscopy (XRD) revealed the existence of liquid-state structure in mixtures of HMF/CO, HMF/LMF, MMF/CO, and MMF/LMF. The observed liquid-state structure was reminiscent of liquid crystals. No differences were observed in the structure of the liquid phase between LMF- and CO-containing mixtures.

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)0.000
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations37
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicFood Chemistry and Fat AnalysisFrench-language works237,207