MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795573272 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v7n3p58

Individual and Total Sugar Contents of 83 Malaysian Foods

2018· article· en· W2795573272 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norhayati Mustafa Khalid, Mohd Fairulnizal Md Noh, Mohd Naeem Mohd Nawi, Nazline Miasin Kehid, Aswir Abd Rashed, Wan Sulong Wan Omar, Norliza Abd Hamid, Janarthini Subramaniam, Rusidah Selamat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet, Metabolism, and Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSugarSucroseFructoseFood scienceMaltoseChemistryLactoseLegumeFree sugarGlucose syrupBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the effort in updating and expanding the carbohydrate data in Malaysian Food Composition Databases, 83 foods were selected based on the most commonly consumed foods and food products by Malaysian. The samples include 31 cereal products, 9 starchy roots and tubers products, 4 legume products, 11 nut and seed products, 4 vegetables, 5 fruits, 15 sugar and syrup products, 2 meat products and 2 oil and fat products. Individual sugars (fructose, glucose, sucrose, lactose and maltose) were analysed usingHigh Performance Liquid Chromatography with Refractive Index Detector. Most of the cereal products contained sucrose, glucose, fructose, lactose and maltose. Four starchy root and tuber products contained sucrose, glucose and fructose. Sucrose was detected in all legume, nut and seed products. Most vegetables contained fructose while all fruits contained glucose and fructose. In addition, all syrups contained sucrose except for kiwi and lime cordial. Overall, sugar and syrup products contained the highest total sugar content (15.00-65.52 g/ 100g) while vegetables were the lowest for total sugar content (2.74-4.83 g/ 100g).

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicDiet, Metabolism, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207