MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007717668 · doi:10.1039/c9fo03050f

<i>Castanea sativa</i> male flower extracts as an alternative additive in the Portuguese pastry delicacy “pastel de nata”

2020· article· en· W3007717668 on OpenAlexaff
Cristina Caleja, Lillian Barros, João C.M. Barreira, Marina Sokóvić, Ricardo C. Calhelha, Albino Bento, M. Beatriz P.P. Oliveira, Isabel C.F.R. Ferreira

Bibliographic record

VenueFood & Function · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaKansainvälisen Liikkuvuuden ja Yhteistyön Keskus
KeywordsPastryDelicacyFood scienceFood additiveBotanyChemistryBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Replacing artificial additives by natural compounds is a current trend in the food industry. In addition to their preserving effect, naturally obtained ingredients often exhibit important levels of bioactivities. Generally, plant species represent better sources of natural ingredients, since their compounds are less prone to causing unpleasant taste or odour. Chestnut male flower (CMF) was reported to have high antioxidant and antimicrobial activities. Hence, it was tested as an alternative to potassium sorbate in the most treasured Portuguese delicacy: "pastel de nata". Different nutritional, chemical, physical and bioactive parameters were compared in two different periods: baking day and two days after baking. All samples presented similar nutritional and chemical profiles, but those added with CMF revealed higher contents of reducing agents and radical scavengers. Accordingly, the newly obtained formulation is expected to have better effects on consumers' health, maintaining the chemical characteristics, besides rendering a novel, economically profitable, application to CMF.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood & FunctionSame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207