MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101917818 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v3n3p78

Analysis of Corn Distillers Dried Grains With Solubles (DDGS) / Flour Mixtures, and Subsequent Bread Baking Trials

2014· article· en· W2101917818 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessica Saunders, Kurt A. Rosentrater, Padmanaban Krishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceDistillers grainsChemistryStearic acidIngredientWheat flourOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grains offer a variety of nutrients; it is thought that through the addition of distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) the fiber and protein in baked products may be improved. In this study, all-purpose flour and bread flour were tested with various DDGS substitution levels (0%, 25%, or 50% flour substitution) with the dough conditioner sodium stearoyl lactylate (SSL) (0%, 0.15%, or 0.3% flour weight basis). SSL is surfactant produced from reacting stearic acid with food grade lactic acid in the presence of sodium. Overall, as the substitution level of DDGS increased, so did protein, moisture, ash, and Hunter-a values. Peak height, side height, width, and length of baked loaves decreased as DDGS quantity increased, however. Baked bread containing SSL had enhanced quality, with increasing dough strength, rate of hydration, mixing tolerance, crumb strength, loaf volume, and shelf life. Overall, 25-50% DDGS substitution appeared to have a negative effect on physical features despite the fact that the nutrient content was enhanced. Less than 25% DDGS had minimal negative effects on bread properties.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207