Comparison of short and long milling flows on yield and physicochemical properties of brans from biofortified and nonbiofortified hull‐less oats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The aim of this study was to compare bran yields of short‐ and long‐flow roller mill from biofortified (+) and nonbiofortified (−) hull‐less oats cv. Haskara and determine effect of biofortification (Zn, I, Se) on composition and physicochemical properties of fractions. Findings Zn, I, and Se contents were significantly increased by biofortification. Yields of coarse bran (CB) obtained by short flow were 42.6% for both Haskara samples, while those of fine bran (FB) obtained by long flow were 46.6% and 47.4% for Haskara (+) and Haskara (−). Beta‐glucan (BG) contents of CB were 8.42% and 8.31%, while those of FB were 8.68% and 8.65% for respective samples. There were no significant differences between CB of Haskara (+) and Haskara (−) samples in terms of mass median diameter, dispersion, particle density, porosity, BG solubility, and RVA viscosity. The differences between FB of the same samples were also not significant in terms of those parameters. However, long flow significantly increased dispersion, porosity, BG solubility, and RVA viscosity and significantly decreased mass median diameter and bulk density compared to short flow. Conclusions Biofortified oats can be used to obtain β‐glucan‐enriched milling fractions. Significance and novelty This is the first study on bran fractions obtained by different milling flows from biofortified hull‐less oats.
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".