Aroma and flavour properties of Saskatchewan grown field peas (<i>Pisum sativum</i> L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malcolmson, L., Frohlich, P., Boux, G., Bellido, A-S., Boye, J. and Warkentin, T. D. 2014. Aroma and flavour properties of Saskatchewan grown field peas (Pisum sativum L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 1419–1426. The aroma and flavour properties of cooked field peas (Pisum sativum L.) were evaluated by a trained sensory panel. Two to four cultivars within four market classes of pea (yellow, green, marrowfat and dun) grown in two locations in Saskatchewan over 2 crop years were evaluated. Panelists found the greatest differences in aroma and flavour properties among market classes, although significant differences were also found among crop year for the aroma attributes of cooked vegetable, earthy, brothy, grainy, hay-like and metallic and the flavour attributes of pea and bitterness. There was also a significant cultivar by crop year interaction for metallic and pea flavor. Dun peas had low intensity scores for sweetness, bitterness and pea flavour. Both green and marrowfat peas had high intensity scores for sweetness and pea flavour. Green peas also had high intensity scores for pea, cooked vegetable, earthy and metallic aroma. Yellow peas had high intensity scores for pea flavour and pea, cooked vegetable and earthy aroma. Differences were found among the four cultivars of yellow peas for bitterness, pea flavour, and pea and earthy aroma. For green peas, differences were found among the three cultivars for pea flavour and aroma. The only difference found among the two cultivars of marrowfat peas was for sweetness. No differences were found between the two cultivars of dun peas. For all pea market classes, milder flavour and aroma may be beneficial in some whole pea or pea flour applications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".