MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170882178 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.5581

Incorporation of pulse flours of different particle size in relation to pita bread quality

2012· article· en· W2170882178 on OpenAlexafffund
Yulia Borsuk, Susan D. Arntfield, O. M. Lukow, Kevin Swallow, Linda Malcolmson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsCanadian International Grains InstituteAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsFood scienceAbsorption of waterWheat flourFarinographChemistryMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To increase pulse consumption, pita bread was fortified with pulse flours milled from green lentils, navy beans and pinto beans, which were ground to produce fine and coarse flours. Pita breads were prepared using composite flours containing pulse flours (25, 50, 75%) and wheat flour or 100% pulse flours and adjusting the amount of water required for mixing based on farinograph water absorption. Pita bread quality was evaluated according to diameter, pocket height, specific loaf volume, texture and crust colour. RESULTS: Blends made from pulse flours with coarse particle size showed higher rates of water absorption. All composite flours and 100% pulse flours produced pitas with pockets, confirming their suitability for this product. Crust colour of pitas was affected less by navy bean flour than by lentil flour. Pita breads made with pinto bean flour were superior in texture. Overall, navy and pinto bean flours appeared more suitable for pita bread. Flours with coarse particle sizes produced pitas with better colour and texture. Sensory parameters of pitas containing 25% coarse pinto or navy bean flour were as good as or better than those from the wheat control. CONCLUSION: Acceptable pita breads can be made using pulse flours, although the substitution level is limited to 25%.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations48
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Science of Food and AgricultureSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207