MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PARTICLE SIZE EFFECT ON SOY PROTEIN ISOLATE EXTRACTION

2007· article· en· W2098684826 on OpenAlexaff
Ted A. Russin, Yves Arcand, Joyce I. Boye

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Processing and Preservation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytase and its Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
KeywordsSoy proteinSoy flourParticle sizeRaw materialFood scienceChemistryExtraction (chemistry)High proteinParticle (ecology)ChromatographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was undertaken to determine if the yield and purity of soy protein isolates could be improved by changing the particle size of the starting raw material. Soy protein isolates were extracted from hexane defatted soy flour ground to three different average particle sizes (89.5 ± 1.1, 184.2 ± 1.6 and 223.4 ± 6.4 µm). By decreasing the average particle diameter of the starting raw material (soy flour) from 223.4 to 89.5 µm the total solids recovery increased from 23 to 32% (P = 0.00008), while the protein recovery increased from 40 to 52% (P = 0.00004). Final protein content (i.e., purity) of the soy protein isolates was not significantly impacted by average particle size. The results clearly demonstrated that protein recovery can be increased by >30% by decreasing the average particle size of the starting raw material (i.e., defatted soy flour), without having any detrimental impact on the purity of the final soy protein isolate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations68
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food Processing and PreservationSame topicPhytase and its ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207