Bibliographic record
Abstract
The market for new protein sources for food has never been as popular as it is today. \nThis is partly a response to the increased climate threat. One major contributing factor \nto the climate impact is food production and the huge waste that comes from both \nproducer and consumer. Trying to develop new sources of protein is important since \ncarbon dioxide emissions from the protein sources consumed today, often from \nanimals, are very high. Plant protein has considerably lower carbon dioxide emissions \nand is therefore a good alternative. \nRapeseed is a well-established oil plant that is grown both in Sweden and \ninternationally, especially in Canada. In Sweden, about 108.000 ha are currently \ngrown with rapeseed of both spring and autumn varieties. The crop can be grown on \nthe major parts of southern Sweden and is relatively easy to grow. Rapeseed consists \nof 30–40% oil and 20–25% protein. The protein in rapeseed has a high-quality \namino acid composition compared to other vegetable protein and animal \nprotein as it contains several essential amino acids. Antinutrients such as \nglucosinolates, phytic acid and erucic acid have long been a problem in rapeseed \nbut thanks to intensive plant breeding, the antinutrients have drastically \ndecreased and are today under approved levels. \nRapeseed contains high-grade protein and is suitable for further processing. Oil \nextraction is the most common human-consumed product of rapeseed, but \nthe production also results in a by-product, a high-protein content press cake. The \npress cake is commonly used for animal feed. \nIn this study, eleven spring rapeseed cultivars were examined, whose protein \nexchange in the press cake was compared. The study was a part of an \nextensive research project on rapeseed protein at Lund University. The \nresults showed differences between the protein yield of the varieties and the variety \nSW Y2909 was found to be the highest yield with 33% crude protein and the lowest \nyield was Lennon with 13%. A conclusion based on the result is that rapeseed \nvarieties have difference in protein yield.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".