MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2728705515 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.13481

Water sorption and cooking time of red kidney beans (<i>Phaseolus vulgaris</i> L.): part I – Effect of freezing and drying conditions on water sorption and cooking time

2017· article· en· W2728705515 on OpenAlexafffund
Fuji Jian, Digvir S. Jayas, Paul G. Fields, N. D. G. White

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProteins in Food Systems
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsSorptionWater contentPhaseolusSorptivityMoistureChemistryWater activityFood scienceDehydrationAbsorption of waterHorticultureBotanyPorosityAdsorptionBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Water sorption and cooking time of kidney beans were determined. The beans were manually harvested at 19.2 ± 0.1% moisture content and stored at −20 and −10 °C for about half a year. The beans were further dried at 30, 40 and 50 °C inside a thin-layer drier for 7.5 h or under room conditions for 4 week. The freezing storage temperature before the beans were dried did not influence their cooking time and water sorption. The saturated kernel volumes decreased approximately 7% after drying. The beans decreased their sphericity during water sorption and had a larger swelling ratio in the thickness direction than in other directions. Lower initial moisture content, especially with a higher drying temperature, decreased water sorptivity and resulted in higher percentage of uncooked kernels if the beans were not soaked before cooking. However, there was no relationship between initial moisture content and uncooked percentage if the beans were soaked before cooking. High drying temperature resulted in hard-to-cook (HTC) phenomenon.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicProteins in Food SystemsFrench-language works237,207