MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reduction in Lentil Cooking Time Using Micronization: Comparison of 2 Micronization Temperatures

2001· article· en· W2120702052 on OpenAlexaff
Susan D. Arntfield, Martin G. Scanlon, Linda Malcolmson, B.M. Watts, Stefan Cenkowski, Donna Ryland, V.J. SAVOIE

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPolysaccharides and Plant Cell Walls
Canadian institutionsResearch ManitobaMonsanto (Canada)Canadian International Grains InstituteUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicronizationChemistryStarchPhytic acidMoistureFood scienceParticle sizeOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Laird No. 1 lentils micronized (high‐intensity infrared heat) to give internal temperatures of 138 and 170 °C were compared to unprocessed lentils stored at room temperature. Micronized lentils, which had been tempered to 33% moisture for 16 h, required less force to compress after cooking and contained increased levels of gelatinized starch and pectic substances but decreased levels of soluble protein, phytic acid, and neutral detergent fiber compared to the unprocessed lentils. Cell walls in the micronized lentil were less susceptible to fracture, and the microstructure was more open. Properties of the micronized lentils were better when the internal temperature reached 138 °C. When micronized to an internal temperature of 170 °C, cooked lentils were harder, possibly due to greater moisture losses and a change in the neutral detergent fiber. Micronization resulted in a slight darkening of the lentils, and this was accentuated at 170 °C.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations64
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicPolysaccharides and Plant Cell WallsFrench-language works237,207