MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2961432442 · doi:10.1017/s0022029919000426

A comparison of the heat stability of fresh milk protein concentrates obtained by microfiltration, ultrafiltration and diafiltration

2019· article· en· W2961432442 on OpenAlexaff
Isis Rodrigues Toledo Renhe, Zhengtao Zhao, Milena Corredig

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProteins in Food Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiafiltrationMicrofiltrationChemistryUltrafiltration (renal)ChromatographyPermeationTurbidityFiltration (mathematics)Heat stabilityCross-flow filtrationPasteurizationCaseinMembrane technologyMembraneFood scienceBiochemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this work was to evaluate the impact of changes during membrane filtration on the heat stability of milk protein concentrates. Dairy protein concentrates have been widely employed in high protein drinks formulations and their stability to heat treatment is critical to ensure quality of the final product. Pasteurized milk was concentrated three-fold by membrane filtration, and the ionic composition was modified by addition of water or permeate from filtration (diafiltration). Diafiltration with water did not affect the apparent diameter of the casein micelles, but had a positive effect on heat coagulation time (HCT), which was significantly longer (50 min), compared to the non diafiltered concentrates (about 30 min). UHT treatments increased the particle size of the casein micelles, as well as the turbidity of retentates. Differences between samples with and without diafiltration were confirmed throughout further analysis of the protein composition of the unsedimentable fraction, highlighting the importance of soluble protein composition on the processing functionality of milk concentrates.

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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ResearchSame topicProteins in Food SystemsFrench-language works237,207