Bibliographic record
Abstract
Edible oils provide a concentrated source of energy and essential fatty acids through daily dietary intake. Lipids also serve as an important constituent of cell walls and carrier of fat-soluble vitamins. In addition , lipids provide flavor, texture and mouthfeel to the food. Edible vegetable oils also serve as a heating medium and are important in the generation of aroma, some of which arise from direct interaction of lipids and/or their degradat ion products with food constituents. Oilseeds and tropical fruits are a major source of food lipids. The edible oils from oilseeds may be produced by pressing, solvent extraction or their combination. The seeds may first be subjected to a pretreatment heating to deactivate enzymes present. The oils after extraction are subsequently subjected to further proce ssing of degumming , refining, bleaching, deodorization, and if necessary , stabilization. Edible oils from source materials are composed primarily oftriacylyglycerols (TAG) . In addition, phospholipids, glycolipids, waxes, wax esters, hydrocarbons, tocopherols and tocotr ienols, other phenolic s, carotenoids, sterols and chlorophylls, and hydrocarb ons among others, may be present as minor constituents and these are collectively referred to as unsaponifiable matter (Shahidi and Shukla, 1996). During proce ssing, storage and use, edible oils undergo chemical and physical changes. Often, process-induced changes of lipids are necessary to manifest specific characters of food , however, such changes should not exceed a desirable limit. Both TAG and minor constituents of the oil exert a profound influence on quality characteristics of the oils and hence their effect on health promotion and disease prevention. Following oil extracti on, the left over meal may also serve as a source of fatInsoluble phytochemicals. Obviously, hulls, might be included in the meal if the seeds are
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".