AACCI Approved Methods Technical Committee Report: Collaborative Study on a Method for Determining the Water Holding Capacity of Pulse Flours and Their Protein Materials (AACCI Method 56-37.01)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method for determining the water holding capacity of pulse flours and their protein materials has been developed and subjected to an interlaboratory study. Eleven participants analyzed twelve blind duplicates of six different samples in a collaborative study to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of the method. Statistical analysis of the collaborative data determined that the within-laboratory repeatability standard deviation (sr) ranged from 0.018 to 0.083, and the among-laboratory reproducibility standard deviation (sR) ranged from 0.039 to 0.18. The within-laboratory relative standard deviation (RSDr) of samples ranged from 2.08 to 5.49%, and the among-laboratory relative standard deviation (RSDR) ranged from 4.99 to 7.49%. Results indicated that the method has good repeatability and reproducibility.
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 | 0.054 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.069 |
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".