Experiments on dough rheology to improve screening of bread wheat cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The bread‐making potential of flour may be roughly estimated by dough rheology, especially its tolerance to over‐mixing as determined with the farinograph. The objective of this study was to identify the relative effects of experimental conditions likely to affect dough mixing stability: mixer speed, temperature, salt, yeast and bread additives such as ascorbic acid and preservatives. The addition of 1–2% salt or ascorbic acid (50 mg kg −1 flour) improved dough mixing stability and counteracted the negative effect of bread preservatives. Mixing salted dough at slow speed (63 rpm) and 25 °C might be a more realistic bread‐making procedure for performing dough rheology assays with equipment such as the farinograph, compared to official methods (only flour and water, no salt; 30 °C). Amongst five bread wheat cultivars, differences existed in dough strengthening response to both salt and ascorbic acid, a property that may find application in wheat breeding and screening.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".