Characterization of Two Chickpea Varieties and the Effect of Cooking on their Physico-chemical and Functional Properties of Flours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the nutritional and functional characteristics of chickpea, flours of two varieties of chickpea (“Blanco Noroeste” and “Costa 2004”) were prepared to know the effect of cooking. Thus the objective of this study was to compare their physicochemical and functional properties in both, raw and cooked flours. Physical properties of the grain, for the two varieties were similar, whereas the physicochemical and functional properties of the flours exhibited differences as a function of the variety and the processing. The chickpea cooked flours showed lower lightness and higher redness and yellowness with respect to raw flours. The proximal composition of cooked flours presented significant differences in fat (5.98% - 6.09%) and moisture contents (0.48% - 0.54%) with respect to raw flours. The particle size distribution determined for the raw and cooked flours samples, indicated a unimodal behavior with a wide distribution. The water absorption capacity and oil capacity showed significant difference among flour varieties. For pasting properties, a higher viscosity was measured for Costa 2004 (380 cP) and Blanco Noroeste (272 cP) raw flours, raw flour exhibited better pasting properties than cooked flours.
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 | 0.001 | 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".