EFFECTIVNESS OF ANTIOXIDANTS ON OVERALL QUALITY OF APRICOT SUCROSE BARS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is about to check the effectiveness of Ascorbic acid (AA), Citric Acid and Potassium Meta-bisulphite (KMS), on quality parameters of sucrose apricot bars was studied over three months at room temperature with 15 days intervals. Sampling was carried out as T0 (pulp of fresh apricot), T2 ( pulp of fresh apricot with KMS, Pectin, CA 1% of each and 20% Brix of sucrose used) T3 ( greater brix degrees 35' with lesser amount of 0.1% of each chemical CA, KMS and pectin was used) in T4, we used lesser brix degrees and different amount of chemicals i.e. 2% pectin, 0.1% AA and 0.15% KMS), in T5 30 degrees of brix in fresh pulp of apricot with 0.1% AA, 0.1% CA and 2% pectin was used and in the last treatment T6 pulp of apricot with 35 degrees brix of sucrose and 0.15% pectin, 0.2% AA and 0.15% KMS. Results reveals that the water activity decreased from 0.70 to 0.62, non-reducing sugar 4.12 to 3.82%, moisture contents reduced to 15% from 18% also shows less pH and ascorbic acid in all samples. While in other physicochemical parameters it shows increasing trend i.e in reducing sugar, titratable acidity, total solids, and total sugars (17.25 to 17.65%, 1.25 to 1.51%, 84 to 87.28% and 63 to 69% respectively in samples. In sensory attributes i.e. color 8.35 to 6.15, taste 9 to 6.25 and overall acceptance 7.89 to 5.5 showed declined conspicuously. During storage all parameters reveals best results with t0 to t5 treatments. During whole study the treatment, T6 shows best on the basis of physicochemical and sensory attributes as compare to rest of other treatments.
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".