RETRACTED: Impact of drying methods on composition and functional properties of date powder procured from different cultivars
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study was designed to evaluate the effect of two different drying methods, that is, spray drying and oven drying on physicochemical and nutritional attributes of date flesh powder of dhakki, aseel, and rabi varieties. Date powders were prepared using mixture of maltodextrin and acacia gum (50:50) as drying aid at the rate of 0.4 kg per 1.0 kg of date fruits (dry weight basis). The oven‐drying conditions were 60°C for 48 hr, whereas in spray drying, flow rate of 30 ml/min at 150°C was maintained. Date powder was obtained in both treatments from three varieties. Nutritional profile in all six powders was explored specifically with quantification of sugars using HPLC‐RI, followed by physicochemical characterization. The total phenolic compounds, color ( L * a * b * values), hygroscopicity, bulk density, wettability, solubility index, and glass transition temperatures (using differential scanning calorimetry, DSC), were determined for the date powders. The nutritional profile and total phenolic contents and sugars (sucrose, fructose, and glucose) were significantly different for the varieties, while treatments showed insignificant effect. The physicochemical characteristics of date powder varied significantly with respect to the date varieties. The colored values were affected due to treatments also, and the spray‐dried powders showed better color values. The drying methods also showed effects in some parameters such as wettability time. Similarly, bulk density was different in both treatments for rabi and aseel. The glass transition temperatures were significantly varied in varieties due to difference in sugar contents, but within the treatments, they remain unaffected. The highest glass transition temperature of spray‐dried rabi was 53.2 ± 1.31°C.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".