Effect of Addition of Three Leaf Yam Flour on Dough Properties and Sensory Qualities of Bread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of three leaf yam flour addition at 5%, 10% and 15% substitution level, dough properties, proximate analysis and sensory qualities of bread were investigated. The values for moisture content ranged from 25.2% to 29.5% with sample A (100%WF) significantly different (p <0.05) from all the other samples. Protein and fat contents ranged from 11.9% to 13.00% and from 1.46% to 4.67% with sample D (15%TLYF) significantly different (p <0.05) from the other samples. Ash and fibre contents ranged from 0.64 to 1.11% and 0.90 to 5.40%, respectively. Total Available Carbohydrate (TAC) ranged from 48.82% to 59.78% with sample D (15%TLYF) been significantly different (P<0.05) from the other samples. Result for physical characteristics showed that volume of bread samples ranged from 157.45cm3 to 158.6cm3 with sample F (10%CF) the least and sample A (100%WF) the highest while weight ranged from 340.04g to 412.66g with sample B the lowest and sample G the highest. Sensory evaluation result for bread showed that samples A (100% WF, B (5%TLYF), E(5%CF) and F(10%CF) were most preferred for crust color, taste, texture and overall acceptability. Alveograph studies of bread dough gave work done (W) ranging from 126 to 307 with 15% cassava flour as the lowest and 100% Wheat flour the highest, while extensibility ratio of dough ranged from 41-76 with sample C (10%TLYF) as the least and (10%CF) as the highest. Work done and extensibility results of bread dough decreased with an increase in substitution level, while ratio of resistance to extensibility (P/L) increase with an increase in substitution for three leaf yam composite dough. The presence of three leaf yam flour addition improved the nutritional qualities of the bread in terms of protein, fat and ash while carbohydrate content reduced which is to an advantage, while addition affected the sensory and physical properties adversely.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".