Estudio comparativo de tres bebidas formuladas con jícama (Smallanthus sonchifolius)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Se formularon tres bebidas combinando jícama con piña, babaco y maracuyá con el objeto de proporcionar un valor agregado al uso tradicional de la jícama y posteriormente evaluar la calidad nutritiva de las mismas, para esto se realizaron los análisis físico químicos y microbiológicos determinándose pH, °Brix, acidez titulable, proteína, azucares totales, coliformes totales, aerobios mesófilos. Se utilizó un DCA y se aplicó la prueba estadística de Tukey con un niel de significancia p≤0,05 , encontrándose que las propiedades nutricionales del jugo de jícama con maracuyá presentaron mejores resultados por su valor nutritivo 11,50 °Brix, 3,82 pH, 13,19% acidez total, 0,54 % de proteína, 0,78 % cenizas y 38,62 % azucares totales Las tres formulaciones presentaron bajas cargas microbiológicas para mesófilos y coliformes que no superan los límites máximos permitidos por las normas INEN NTE 2337 para Jugos, pulpas, concentrados, néctares, bebidas de frutas y vegetales.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".