Techno‐functional characterization of salad dressing emulsions supplemented with pea, lentil and chickpea flours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Salad dressings supplemented with pulse flours are novel products. A three-factor face-centered central composite design (CCD) was used to determine the effect of pulse flour concentration (3.5%, 7%, 10.5% w/w), egg yolk concentration (3%, 5%, 7% w/w) and oil concentration (20%, 35%, 50% w/w) on the rheological and color characteristics of salad dressings supplemented with pulse flours. RESULTS: The consistency coefficient m, plateau modulus G(N)(0), recoverable strain Q(t) and color values were all affected by the concentrations of pulse flours used. Scanning electron microscopy showed that dressings with lower oil and egg yolk contents had a less densely packed network compared with dressings with higher oil and egg yolk contents. Sensory results were most promising for salad dressings supplemented with the whole green lentil, yellow pea with low flour content, and chickpea with high oil content. CONCLUSION: This study should be useful for designing novel types of salad dressings to meet market requirements as well as helping to increase pulse consumption.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".