MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Studies on the Nutritional Characteristics of some Commercial Wheat Varieties of Dry Land and Wet Land Grown in Sindh Province

2014· article· en· W2147748219 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aasia Akbar Panhwar, Saghir Ahmed Sheikh, Benish Nawaz Mirani, Mahvish Jabeen Channa, Samia Khanzada

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy and Nutrition Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlutenDry landAgronomyStarchDry weightCropContext (archaeology)AgricultureMoistureEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeographyFood scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research was carried out to investigate the nutritional characteristics of some commercial wheat varieties of dry land and wet land grown in Sindh province during 2011-12 at Institute of Food Sciences and Technology, Faculty of Crop Production, Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam. Four irrigated land (Inqulab, TD-1, Sarsabz and kherman) wheat varieties and four dry land (TK-3, Marvi, PK-85, Sassi) wheat varieties were collected from their respective areas and subjected to chemical analysis.The bio-chemical characteristics of dry land and wet land wheat varieties differed significantly. Chemical analysis indicate that moisture (13.06%), protein (14.83%), dry gluten (9.03%), wet gluten (35.66%), gluten index (73.8%), starch (75.83%) and zeleny (68.66%) contents were recorded higher in wet land wheat varieties than those of dry land wheat varieties with moisture (12.66%), protein (11.9%), dry gluten (8.2%), wet gluten (32.93%), gluten index (64.53%), starch (68.66%) and zeleny (58.33%). This study reveals that availability of water and environmental factors are directly related with the nutritional characteristics of wheat varieties. This study clarify that wet land wheat varieties are better in the context of nutritional qualities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy and Nutrition SciencesSame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207