Chemical leavening and other baker’s yeast substitutes: overview of patents filed between 1833 and 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The aim of this study was to review general trends in the patent literature on baker’s yeast substitutes, including chemical leavening and gas injection. Overall, 494 unique inventions were described in patents filed over about 200 years, between 1833 and 2019. About two‐thirds of patented inventions targeted acid‐reacting materials, and the rest was on non‐specific protection of active ingredients (13%), gas injection such as in the aerated bread process (12%), gas‐releasing agents like sodium bicarbonate (9%) and miscellaneous dough improvers, including flavouring agents and nutrients (4%). Drawbacks included off‐taste and potentially non‐healthy residues such as aluminium. Most baker’s yeast substitutes were dry chemical preparations, so‐called baking powders, that mainly allowed easy and cheap production of miscellaneous fat‐ and sugar‐rich foods such as cakes, and probably contributed to the popularity of the latter. Applications included ready‐to‐use dry bakery mixes and refrigerated doughs. Yeast substitutes were originally developed for bread in England and perfected later for fat‐rich bakery foods, mainly in the United States. where inventors owned 59% of total patents. Specific aspects of baker’s yeast substitutes will be fully covered in companion articles.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".