Evaluation of quality characteristics of bread from kodo, little and foxtail millets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small millets incorporated breads were standardized by incorporating millet flour viz., kodo millet, little millet and foxtail millet at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70% levels. The developed bread was evaluated for their sensory attributes and it was highly acceptable at 20% level of small millets incorporation. The developed products were analyzed for their physico-chemical properties. The incorporation of millet flour increased the bread characteristics such as height, weight, specific volume, bulk density, water absorption and decreased the dough extensibility. As the level of substitution increases, the whiteness index increased and the yellowness index decreased for the developed millet bread. The staleness of bread crumb was increased on storage. The texture profiles like springiness, cohesiveness and resilience were decreased. The fibre content of the millet bread was 1.31g, 1.46g and 1.53g for kodo, little and foxtail millet bread respectively and was higher than the control (0.36g) bread. The calcium and iron content of the developed bread was 21.54 and 1.96mg, 19.88 and 3.36mg and 22.21mg and 2.28mg per 100g of the kodo, little and foxtail millet bread respectively. The shelf life of the bread was 7 days under ambient condition in different packaging materials and the microbial population was within the safer limit during the storage period.
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 | 0.001 | 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".