MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162173163 · doi:10.1094/cchem.2000.77.2.128

Effects of Alkali Debranning, Roller Mill Cracking and Gap Setting, and Alkali Steeping Conditions on Milling Yields from a Dent Corn Hybrid

2000· article· en· W2162173163 on OpenAlexaff
Ping Yang, Lianzhu Du, D. L. Wang, B. H. Li, Kent D. Rausch, P. Buriak, S. R. Eckhoff

Bibliographic record

VenueCereal Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsIngredion (Canada)
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSteepingChemistryEndospermStarchMillYield (engineering)Alkali metalWet-millingCorn starchGermRoller millAgronomyPulp and paper industryMaterials scienceMetallurgyFood scienceMathematicsOrganic chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Starch yield was significantly affected by all three main unit operations in alkali wet‐milling (debranning, roller milling, and steeping). The conditions for the three unit operations were studied using a single hybrid. Studies on debranning showed that optimal separation between pericarp and corn endosperm was obtained when corn was soaked in a 1.5–2% NaOH solution at 85°C for 5 min. Passing debranned corn through smooth roller mill once or twice did not affect the product yields, but passing the corn through the roller mill three times decreased the germ yield because of a large amount of broken germ. A 62% higher processing rate could be achieved when passing corn through the mill twice than by passing it through the mill once. The gap should be set at 2.0 mm when passing corn through the mill once, and it should be set at 3.5 mm for the first pass and 2.0 mm for the second pass when passing corn through the mill twice. Starch yield was more sensitive to NaOH concentration and steep temperature than to steep time. The highest starch yield was obtained when steeping corn in 0.5% NaOH for 1 hr at 45°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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.859

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCereal ChemistrySame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207