MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743479671 · doi:10.1111/1750-3841.13826

Low‐Temperature Blanching as a Tool to Modulate the Structure of Pectin in Blueberry Purees

2017· article· en· W2743479671 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura M. Chevalier, Laurie‐Eve Rioux, Paul Angers, Sylvie L. Turgeon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPolysaccharides and Plant Cell Walls
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
KeywordsPectinChemistryFood scienceBlanchingPasteurizationDepolymerizationSolubilityOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blueberry composition was characterized for 6 cultivars. It contains a good amount of dietary fiber (10% to 20%) and pectin (4% to 7%) whose degree of methylation (DM) is sensitive to food processing. A low temperature blanching (LTB: 60 °C/1 h) was applied on blueberry purees to decrease pectin DM, in order to modulate puree properties and functionalities (that is, viscosity and stability), and to enhance pectin affinity toward other components within food matrices. Fiber content, viscosity, pectin solubility, DM, and monosaccharide composition were determined for both pasteurized, and LTB+pasteurized blueberry purees. The results showed that neither the amount of fiber, nor the viscosity were affected by LTB, indicating that this treatment did not result in any significant pectin depolymerization and degradation. LTB caused a decrease both in pectin DM from 58-67% to 45-47% and in the amount of water-soluble pectin fraction, the latter remaining the major fraction of total pectin at 52% to 57%. A LTB is a simple and mild process to produce blueberry purees with mostly soluble and low-methylated pectin in order to extend functionality and opportunities for interactions with other food ingredients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicPolysaccharides and Plant Cell WallsFrench-language works237,207