The Effect of Thermo-Mechanical Processing on Physical Properties of Processed Amaranth and Oat Bran Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amaranth-oat composites were developed using gluten free amaranth flour containing essential amino acids and minerals with oat products containing β-glucan, known for lowering blood cholesterol. Amaranth flour and oat bran concentrate (OBC) composites (1:4) were processed using different technologies, including dry mixing, baking, steaming, cold wet blending, and high speed homogenizing (Polytron PT6000) with cold water or hot water. The results showed that water holding capacities, pasting, and rheological properties were dramatically increased by wet blending, Polytron with cold water, and Polytron with hot water followed by drum drying. The processing procedures created dissimilar physical properties that will enhance the application of ancient grains and oat for functional foods that are suitable for people who are gluten-intolerant. In addition, the dietary fiber contents of composites were increased by the incorporation of OBC. The composites can be inexpensively prepared and processed. The new healthful products will be affordable for people who suffer from celiac disease or gluten-intolerant. These innovative gluten-free functional food products will help millions of gluten sensitive consumers enjoy heart-healthy functional foods.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".