The interrelationships between wheat quality, composition, and dough rheology for a range of Western Canadian wheat cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objectives The overall goal of this research was to understand the interrelationships between wheat quality, grain and flour composition, and dough rheology for a range of commercially grown Canadian wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars (×25) within different wheat market classes. Findings Cultivar type varied in proximate analyses, which directly impacted dough handling parameters. Micro‐doughLAB absorption was positively correlated with protein content, grain hardness, wet gluten, and dry gluten content, and was negatively correlated with the gluten performance index. Strong and significant correlation was found between gluten properties, flour composition, and dough strength measurements. Conclusions Protein and gluten properties, in particular, significantly impacted dough strength measurements. Cultivars displaying stronger gluten strengths may result in dough with better dough handling properties. Significance and novelty The study provides useful information about 25 commercially grown Western Canadian wheat cultivars with a range of gluten strength, and their relation to their glutenin and gliadin subunit composition, and dough handling properties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".