MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137322548 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n11p72

Dietary Fiber and beta-glucan Contents of Oat Tarhana: A Turkish Fermented Cereal Food

2012· article· en· W2137322548 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Kilci, Duygu Göçmen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu
KeywordsFood scienceFermentationWheat flourFermentation in food processingDietary fiberFortificationChemistryControl sampleBiologyLactic acidBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tarhana is a traditional Turkish fermented cereal based food, made from wheat flour, bakers’ yeast, yogurt and different vegetables. After fermentation, the tarhana dough is dried and milled. Tarhana powder is most often used in the form of soup. In this study, oat flour (OF) and steel cut oat (SCO) were used to replace wheat flour in the tarhana formulation (control) at the levels of 10, 20, 30 and 40% (w/w). Tarhana with 40% SCO had the highest insoluble dietary fiber (IDF), soluble dietary fiber (SDF) and total dietary fiber (TDF) values, followed by tarhana with 30 and 20% SCO. Control had the lowest beta-glucan content (0.13%) while tarhana with 40% SCO had the highest value (1.50%). As the levels of OF and SCO increased in formulations, beta-glucan contents increased. Results showed that OF and SCO additions improved the nutritional quality of tarhana by causing significant increases in dietary fiber and beta-glucan contents. All of the soups with oat products and control were comparable in terms of the sensory properties. Overall, acceptances of soups were found the best at the sample with 10% OF. It can be concluded that usage of OF and SCO in tarhana did not give negative results in terms of acceptability.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207