MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214167379 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.15447

Gas sources in chemical leavening and other baker’s yeast substitutes: lessons from patents and science

2021· article· en· W3214167379 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Gélinas

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsCegep de Saint HyacintheAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeavening agentSodium bicarbonateChemistryAmmonium bicarbonateCarbon dioxideFermentationSodiumBicarbonateFood scienceOrganic chemistryRaw material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Baker’s yeast produces carbon dioxide during dough fermentation, which gives bakery foods with expanded volume. This review covers gas sources other than baker’s yeast according to information disclosed in patents and supported by scientific literature. Inventors had more interest in gas injection in dough, mainly carbon dioxide, than gas‐releasing agents available in chemical leavening, so‐called baking powder, with 58 and 43 patented inventions, respectively. For chemical leavening, 20 gas‐releasing agents were proposed, including 11 patented and 9 non‐patented agents like sodium bicarbonate, the most popular. Other gas‐releasing agents included miscellaneous salts of carbonate and bicarbonate (ammonium; calcium; magnesium; potassium) as well as compounds like hydrogen peroxide and, more recently, glutamic acid. Coatings were patented to protect sodium bicarbonate towards moisture and delay its action in dough. Recent trends include aerosol dough and flavourful sodium‐free gas‐releasing agents.

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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207