MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811388609 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.9228

Review on plant protein–polysaccharide complex coacervation, and the functionality and applicability of formed complexes

2018· review· en· W2811388609 on OpenAlexafffund
Sumudu N. Warnakulasuriya, Michael T. Nickerson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProteins in Food Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCoacervatePolysaccharideBiochemical engineeringChemistryComputational biologyBiologyBiochemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Controlling the interactions between plant proteins and polysaccharides can lead to the development of novel electrostatic complexed structures that can give unique functionality. This in turn can broaden the diversity of applications that they may be suitable for. Overwhelmingly in the literature, work and reviews relating to coacervation have involved the use of animal proteins. However, with the increasing demand for plant-based protein alternatives by industry and consumers, a greater understanding of how they interact with polysaccharides is essential to control structure, functionality and applicability. This review discusses the factors governing the nature of protein-polysaccharide interactions, their functional attributes and industrial applications, with special attention given to plant proteins. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations206
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Science of Food and AgricultureSame topicProteins in Food SystemsFrench-language works237,207