MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807649169 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v7n4p120

To Assess the Nutritional Quality of Triticale Based Product Medicated and Non-Medicated Health Powder

2018· article· en· W2807649169 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seema Sonkar, Shraddha Yadav, Rishi bhel, O. P. Bishnoi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed and Plant Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriticaleAgronomyGerminationGrain qualityFalling NumberCaryopsisBiologyMoistureCultivarChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Triticale is a more recent development in the field of cereals, that is a man made cereals created by crossing wheat and rye, compared to oats and barley, which have long histories, triticale is between 40 and 50 years old. Triticale is hybrid of wheat (Triticum) and rye (Scale) first bread in laboratories during the late 19th century in Scotland and Germany. When crossing wheat and rye, wheat is used the female parent and rye is the male parent. The resulting hybrid is sterile and must be treated with colchicines to induce polyoidy and thus the ability to reproduce itself. High quality grain, conditioning products with desirable properties and nutritional value, determines the use of triticale for consumption. Therefore, more and more attention is paid in triticale breeding for its quality, to obtain highly yielding, but also technologically advantageous varieties. The aim of this research was to evaluate nutritional quality and sensory properties of triticale based product that are – Medicated Health Powder which are made from germinated grain triticale, wheat, pearl millet, Beet root ashwagandha, safed musli and steavia powder and Non– Medicated Health Powder which are made from germinated grain triticale, wheat, pearl millet, and steavia powder. The result of the nutritional analysis indicated that the nutritional composition of Medicated health powder are moisture -8.5, ash -2.20, protein- 6.59 and iron-1.82 gm. Non-Medicated health powder are moisture -8.7, ash -1.89, protein- 6.36 and iron-1.71 gm. Regarding sensory properties, these products were evaluated on sensory parameters using nine point hedonic rating scale. Sensory score for Medicated Health Powder for appearance 9.0, texture 8.4 color 8.2, flavor 8.0 and overall acceptability is 9.0. and Non-Medicated Health Powder for appearance 9.0, texture 8.8 color 8.4, flavor 8.8 and overall acceptability is 9.0. A sensory quality of products (Medicated health powder and Non- medicated health powder) was monitored during storage and was found stable for 3 months. Medicated and Non- medicated health powder health powder is recommended for diabetic patients and in cronic heart disease.

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)0.005
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicSeed and Plant BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207