Baking tests: Effect of sucrose and water on yeast gassing power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objectives Baking tests must be performed with formulations giving controlled gas production. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of sucrose and water on yeast gassing power in dough. Total gas production, gas production rate, and residual fermentable sugars were determined in dough made with white flour and ten wholemeal samples. Findings With white flour adjusted for diastatic activity, gas produced after 3 hr at 38°C was constant in dough containing up to 6% sucrose. In the latter, yeast gassing power increased according to water content contrary to non‐sugared dough which gave uniform gas production. Yeast inhibition was seen with all flour samples tested. Gas production in dough also varied according to the yeast lot. Conclusions Sucrose and lack of water inhibited yeast gassing power in dough. Depending on the water content, fermented dough with 6% sucrose produced 10%–30% less gas than non‐sugared dough. Significance and novelty Yeast was inhibited by osmotic pressure in dough containing too much sugar and, to a lesser extent, too little water, resulting in variable gas production and potential bias in bread volume. Baking tests on flour with low water absorption should be performed with non‐sugared dough.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".