MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168572197 · doi:10.1111/1750-3841.12539

Effect of Okra Cell Wall and Polysaccharide on Physical Properties and Stability of Ice Cream

2014· article· en· W2168572197 on OpenAlexaff
Pilapa Yuennan, Tanaboon Sajjaanantakul, H. Douglas Goff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersRoyal Golden Jubilee (RGJ) Ph.D. ProgrammeThailand Research Fund
KeywordsIce creamIce crystalsRecrystallization (geology)Food scienceFlavorChemistryViscosityMaterials scienceGeologyComposite materialMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stabilizers are used in ice cream to increase mix viscosity, promote smooth texture, and improve frozen stability. In this study, the effects of varying concentrations (0.00%, 0.15%, 0.30%, and 0.45%) of okra cell wall (OKW) and its corresponding water-soluble polysaccharide (OKP) on the physical characteristics of ice cream were determined. Ice cream mix viscosity was measured as well as overrun, meltdown, and consumer acceptability. Ice recrystallization was determined after ice cream was subjected to temperature cycling in the range of -10 to -20 °C for 10 cycles. Mix viscosity increased significantly as the concentrations of OKW and OKP increased. The addition of either OKW or OKP at 0.15% to 0.45% significantly improved the melting resistance of ice cream. OKW and OKP at 0.15% did not affect sensory perception score for flavor, texture, and overall liking of the ice cream. OKW and OKP (0.15%) reduced ice crystal growth to 107% and 87%, respectively, as compared to 132% for the control (0.00%). Thus, our results suggested the potential use of OKW and OKP at 0.15% as a stabilizer to control ice cream quality and retard ice recrystallization. OKP, however, at 0.15% exhibited greater effect on viscosity increase and on ice recrystallization inhibition than OKW.

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)0.003
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations42
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementFrench-language works237,207