MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890281549 · doi:10.3390/nu10091327

Hairless Canaryseed: A Novel Cereal with Health Promoting Potential

2018· review· en· W2890281549 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Emily Mason, Lamia L’Hocine, Allaoua Achouri, Salwa Karboune

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsFood scienceIngredientCultivarAntioxidantHealth benefitsDigestion (alchemy)Functional foodBrown riceNutraceuticalBiologyHealthy foodChemistryBotanyTraditional medicineBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glabrous canaryseeds were recently approved for human consumption as a novel cereal grain in Canada and the United States. Previously, canaryseeds were exclusively used as birdseed due to the presence of carcinogenic silica fibers; therefore the nutritional value of the seeds has been seriously overlooked. Two cultivars of glabrous canaryseeds (yellow and brown) were created from the hairy varieties. They are high in protein compared to other cereal grains, and contain high amounts of tryptophan, an amino acid normally lacking in cereals, and are gluten-free. Bioactive peptides of canaryseeds produced by in vitro gastrointestinal digestion have shown antioxidant, antidiabetic, and antihypertensive activity. The seeds contain other constituents with health promoting effects, including unsaturated fatty acids, minerals, and phytochemicals. Anti-nutritional components in the seeds are comparable to other cereal grains. Because of their beneficial health effects, canaryseeds should be regarded as a healthy food and have immense potential as a functional food and ingredient. Further research is required to determine additional bioactive peptide activity and capacity, as well as differences between the yellow and brown cultivars.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

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

Citations30
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207