Microstructure and distribution of oil, protein, and starch in different compartments of canaryseed (<i>Phalaris canariensis</i> L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objectives The aim of this study was to understand seed microstructure and oil, protein, and starch distribution in brown and yellow canaryseed that could provide an understanding of potential use of solvent‐free technologies for protein fractionation purposes. Findings Varying thickness of the bran was observed from the ventral to the dorsal side of the seed. The aleurone layer is mostly a single‐cell layer; however, it could occasionally be a double‐cell layer. The germ, endosperm, and aleurone layer contain oil. However, more oil is distributed in the endosperm area (3.88 g of oil in roller‐milled white flour) than in the germ and aleurone layer (2.83 g of oil in roller‐milled bran fraction). The endosperm also contains varying sizes of compound starch granules (~4–7 µm to 20 µm) and individual starch granules (~2–4 µm). Protein is widely distributed in the endosperm compared to the germ, aleurone layer, and bran. Conclusions Microstructural differences in different regions of the canaryseed were observed. The presence of higher oil content in the endosperm suggests that the application of solvent‐free technologies could be challenging for protein fractionation. Significance and novelty This study revealed microstructural and chemical differences in different regions of the seed. Especially, it showed the spatial distribution of oil, which is crucial in designing industrial processes, for “clean‐labeled” protein ingredients.
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".