Structural characterization of intermediate wheatgrass (<i>Thinopyrum intermedium</i>) starch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objectives Intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium, IWG), a perennial, is currently being developed into a food crop that can be used in mainstream food systems. This study focused on characterizing starches extracted from IWG kernels harvested in Roseau (IWG‐RS) and Rosemount (IWG‐RM) in Minnesota, USA, and compared with starches from Jasmine rice (JR) and hard red wheat (HRW). Thermal properties, size distribution, granule size and morphology, and the unit and internal chain profile of extracted starches were evaluated. Findings The amylose contents of IWG‐RS and IWG‐RM were 30.7% and 30.4%, respectively. IWG starches had the lowest gelatinization temperatures. Enthalpy of gelatinization (ΔH) of HRW was similar to that of IWG‐RM. The λmax of the starches suggests that the amylose chains and internal chains of the IWG starches were longer than those of HRW and JR. IWG‐RM has the least β‐limit dextrin and longer external chain. Unit and internal chain profiles of amylopectins between IWGs were similar. Conclusions This study revealed that the properties of IWG starches were similar to those of wheat. Differences in some starch properties were also observed between the IWG grown at different locations. Significance and novelty This is the first report on the unit and internal chain profile of IWG. Understanding the microstructure of starch from IWG can potentially optimize its chemical functionality.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".