Alternate Dough Preparation Protocol for Extensigraph Test of Dough Strength
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extensigraph is an internationally accepted method for measurement of physical properties of dough subjected to mechanical handling and resting. Standard extensigraph methods ( AACC International Approved Method 54‐10.01 , ISO 5530‐2) use the farinograph for the preparation of dough in the presence of 2% salt at reduced water absorption (farinograph absorption minus 2–3%). However, the dough so prepared is usually underdeveloped and drier than typically seen in common baking processes. In addition, the standard extensigraph test is time consuming and requires a large sample size. In this study, an alternate dough preparation protocol is proposed, consisting of a Swanson‐type pin mixer at reduced salt (1%) and elevated water absorption (farinograph absorption plus 4%). With the alternate method, dough is fully developed and similar to bread dough in physical properties. AACCI Approved Method 54‐10.01 is followed for dough rounding, molding, resting, and stretching by using the Brabender Extensograph‐E instrument. Strong correlations for resistance to extension ( r = 0.90) and area ( r = 0.92) were found between the modified and standard dough preparation methods. This protocol requires much less flour sample and significantly increases sample throughput.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".