MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208724169 · doi:10.3390/foods10112589

Aquafaba from Korean Soybean II: Physicochemical Properties and Composition Characterized by NMR Analysis

2021· article· en· W3208724169 on OpenAlexaff
Yue He, Youn Young Shim, Jianheng Shen, Ji Hye Kim, Jae Youl Cho, Wan Soo Hong, Venkatesh Meda, Martin J. T. Reaney

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsGenome PrairieUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsChemistryRaffinoseStachyoseFood scienceCitric acidSuccinic acidSucroseLactic acidSoybean oilAcetic acidOrganic chemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aquafaba (AQ) emulsification properties are determined by genetics and seed processing conditions. The physicochemical properties and hydration rates of chickpea (CDC Leader) as a control with proven emulsifying properties were recently reported. Here, we identify correlations between soybean (Backtae, Seoritae, and Jwinunikong) physical, chemical, and hydration properties as well as AQ yield from seed and functional (emulsion and foaming) properties. In addition, a total of 20 compounds were identified by NMR including alcohols (isopropanol, ethanol, methanol), organic acids (lactic acid, acetic acid, succinic acid, citric acid, and malic acid), sugars (glucose, galactose, arabinose, sucrose, raffinose, stachyose), essential nutrients (choline, phosphocholine), amino acids (alanine, glutamine), and polyphenols (resveratrol, glycitin). The process used in this study utilizes a soaking step to hydrate the seed of the selected Korean soybean cultivars. The product, AQ, is an oil emulsifier and foaming agent, which is suitable for use as an egg substitute with improved emulsion/foam formation properties when compared with a chickpea-based AQ.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207