MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006270750 · doi:10.3390/foods9020175

Proximate Analysis and Nutritional Evaluation of Twenty Canadian Lentils by Principal Component and Cluster Analyses

2020· article· en· W3006270750 on OpenAlexafffundabout
D. Dan Ramdath, Zhan‐Hui Lu, Padma L. Maharaj, Jordan Winberg, Yolanda Brummer, Aileen Hawke

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsStarchFood sciencePrincipal component analysisCarbohydrateProximateResistant starchDietary fiberChemistryHydrolysisComposition (language)BiologyMathematicsBiochemistryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proximate composition and starch nutritional properties of twenty cooked lentils were assessed to identify unique varieties that could be used in value added foods. Significant variations exist among the lentil varieties (p < 0.05) with respect to their energy, fat, protein, carbohydrate, and dietary fiber content, and these are related to lentil type and seed size. Dazil and Greenstar were unique for their high resistant starch content (RS) and lower area under the starch hydrolysis curve (SHAUC) while Proclaim was opposite. SHAUC was positively correlated (p < 0.001) with rapidly digestible starch (RDS) content (r = 0.626) but negatively correlated with RS content (r = −0.635). Principal component analysis showed that the first three principal components accounted for 62.8% of the total variance and the contribution of SHAUC was 33.2%. These results confirm that in vitro SHAUC and a combination of RDS and RS may be predictive of the digestibility profile of cooked lentils.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207