MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892698139 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v7n6p16

Development of Gluten-Free Egg Pasta based on Amaranth, Maize and Sorghum

2018· article· en· W2892698139 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Paux, Kurt A. Rosentrater

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmaranthFood scienceSorghumGluten freeMathematicsGlutenPopulationRaw materialRecipeAgronomyChemistryBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to increase of the population affected by Coeliac disease and awareness of consumers about the relationship between food and health, the production of cereal products from raw materials other than wheat is of interest. The aim of the work was to produce good quality gluten-free spaghettis, based on sorghum, amaranth and maize flour. Response surface methodology was applied to determine optimal formulation for the production of pasta. The resulting products of the experimental design were characterized regarding humidity, color, density, water activity, texture (firmness and elasticity), optimal cooking time, cooking weight, and cooking loss. The main trials were compared to two industrials gluten-free spaghetti. The results showed that water activity and cooking weight of the main trials were similar to the industrials pasta, but were really different for the other studied parameters. The optimal formulation was determined in order to obtain pasta with low cooking loss and optimal color and texture firmness. It utilized 12% egg white, 60% maize flour, 30% sorghum flour, 10% amaranth flour, 2.4% guar gum and 36% water. The optimal formulated pasta was evaluated by an untrained consumer panel in a sensorial analysis to show the consumer acceptance. The product presents nutritional benefits, the color was appreciated, but the texture was granular and crumbly which was not liked by the consumers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207