Functional characteristics and protein quality of selected commercially obtained brown and yellow canary seed flours and prepared isolates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objectives Canary seed is a true cereal crop and classified as a “novel” food for human consumption. To explore potential food applications, the current study focused on evaluating the functional and nutritional properties of flours and protein isolates from glabrous (yellow and brown) canary seed. Findings The proximate composition, total starch and total amylose contents of the flours from both brown and yellow seeds were not significantly different. Both flours shared similar pasting properties and started developing viscosity at ~90°C. All the protein isolates showed >75% purity although were obtained in low yield (<5%). Most of the functional properties of the canary seed flour were significantly lower than those of the protein isolates. Similarly, lower digestibility of the flours (<32% in vitro protein digestibility‐corrected amino acid scores—PDCAAS) was evident in comparison with the isolates (>50% in vitro PDCAAS). Conclusions There are no significant differences between the yellow and brown canary seed proteins in terms of their composition, and functional and nutritional properties. However, marked differences were observed between the flours and protein isolates. The selection of yellow seed over the brown seed could be based on the color attributes of the flour or isolates for the intended product application. Significance and novelty This study provides insight on the protein quality, that is, functional and nutritional properties, of flour and protein isolates from yellow and brown canary seed. The findings provide prospects of selecting yellow seeds versus brown seeds for product applications based on their protein quality.
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".