Protein content correlates with starch morphology, composition and physicochemical properties in field peas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein and starch are two major components in field peas. In this study, we investigated the starch morphologies, compositions, and thermal properties between high protein peas (approximately 30%) and other market types of field peas (yellow, green, maple, and marrowfat peas, with approximately 23% protein contents). For the shape and size, high protein peas had the compound starch granules that could be easily fragmented into small irregular and polygonal granules, whereas other pea types had oval or kidney-like starch granules with high percentage of large granule sizes. High protein peas had significantly lower starch contents (27.2%–34.2%) than other pea types (45.5%–47.4%). However, the amylose content (74.6%–89.2%) in high protein peas were significantly higher that of other pea types (50.1%–54.1%). Our differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) data showed that the onset temperature (T o ), peak temperature (T p ), and conclusion temperature (T c ) of starch gelatinization in high protein peas were significantly higher than those of other pea types, whereas the enthalpy change (ΔH) of high protein peas was significantly lower than those of other pea types. The unique properties of high protein peas characterized in this study provided useful information to further improve pea quality.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".