Evaluation of the Quality of Composite Maize-Wheat Chinchin Enriched with Rhynchophorous phoenicis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to develop and evaluate a snack product (chin-chin) from composite maize-wheat flour blends enriched with edible palm weevil (Rhyhnchophorus phoenicis) paste. The maize-wheat chin-chin enriched with R. phoenicis were subjected to acceptability test using twenty member semi-trained panelist. The moisture, fat, protein and carbohydrate compositions of the snack samples had significant differences in their values. Sample 5M5R90W (containing 5% maize flour and Rhyhnchophorus phoenicis paste and 90% wheat flour) had the highest protein value of 19.05% while the least value 9.39% was obtained by sample 100M0R0W (100% maize flour alone). Sample 100M0R0W containing 100% maize flour also had the highest carbohydrate value of 75.24%. There was no significant difference in the ash and crude fiber contents of the chin-chin samples enriched with edible palm weevil paste. There were significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) in the functional properties of maize-wheat composite flour blends. Their wettability values ranged from 46.67 – 200 while the swelling index, bulk density and oil absorption capacity showed no significant difference in their values. The result of the mineral analysis showed phosphorus, magnesium and sodium had significant differences in their values in the range of 317.55 – 376.75mg/100g; 5.60 -13.60mg/100g;59.0 – 70.3mg/100g, respectively. There were no significant differences in the sensory attributes of the chin-chin samples. The result showed that an acceptable chin-chin product can be processed with the inclusion of the larva of edible palm weevil with maize-wheat composite flour to enhance the nutritional quality of the product.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".