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)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it