Oxidative stability of direct‐expanded chickpea–sorghum snacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In contrast to other pulses, chickpea has a relatively high fat content (3%–10%). This study was designed to investigate direct‐expanded chickpea–sorghum extruded snacks (50:50, 60:40, and 70:30 chickpea:sorghum, w/w) with respect to: their oxidative stability and sensory properties during accelerated (55°C) and room temperature (25°C) storage; correlations between chemical markers (peroxide value and p ‐anisidine value) and sensory data during accelerated storage; and the shelf‐life of snacks extruded at the optimal expansion point as determined by a rotatable central composite design. Peroxide values and p ‐anisidine values were in the range of 0–2.5 mEq/Kg and 5–30, respectively, for both accelerated and room temperature storage, and increased during storage ( p < .05). 70:30 and 60:40 (w/w) chickpea–sorghum snacks had higher peroxide and p ‐anisidine values compared to the 50:50 snack during storage at either temperature ( p < .05). Rancid aroma and off‐flavor of 60:40 and 70:30 chickpea–sorghum snacks (slightly intense = 6) also were higher than that of the 50:50 snack (moderately weak = 3) ( p < .05). Significant correlations ( p < .05) were found between chemical markers and sensory attributes ( p < .05). The study illustrated that shelf‐life decreased as the percentage of chickpea in the blend increased. Therefore, in terms of shelf‐life, a 50:50 chickpea–sorghum blend is preferable.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".