MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295949739 · doi:10.5539/jas.v8n4p169

A Study of Salt Content of Different Bread Types Marketed in Amman, Jordan

2016· article· en· W2295949739 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fatema M. Abu Hussain, Hamed R. Takruri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceArabicMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Noncommunicable diseases, including cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of premature death in the 21st century. Dietary factors such as high salt intake constitute the main risk factors. Bread is considered as one of the most important sources of dietary salt. The objectives of this study were to determine the sodium content of the main types of bread that are marketed in Amman, and to evaluate the bakers’ adherence to the Jordanian specifications. Sixty eight bread samples of seven types of bread were collected from 13 different bakeries distributed in Amman. Bread samples were dried, ashed and the sodium content was directly determined by using flame photometry method. The average salt content of the analyzed bread samples was 1.19±0.21 g salt/100 g of fresh bread, ranging between 0.42 g/100 g for white Arabic bread and 2.06±0.19 for shrak bread. Approximately half of bread samples have met the Jordanian specifications. It is concluded that salt content of bread varies widely in Jordan and that bread types such as shrak and mashrouh breads contain high amount of salt. The Jordanian specification of the salt content of bread should be applied to all breed types. Also, it should be reduced gradually to a lower limit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207