MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280628730 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.15836

Pesticides and gas production by baker's yeast in bread dough

2022· article· en· W4280628730 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Gélinas, Nathalie Rémillard

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYeastPesticideFermentationFood scienceTebuconazoleChemistryFungicidePesticide residueBiotechnologyBiologyAgronomyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Pesticide residues might delay food fermentation. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of thirty‐one commercial pesticides (fourteen fungicides; eleven herbicides; one growth regulator; five insecticides) on the fermentative activity of baker's yeast in bread dough and sugared water. Yeast gas production after 3 h at 38 °C in dough or water was slightly inhibited by 10 mg kg −1 of a herbicide containing glufosinate‐ammonium and 100 mg kg −1 of fungicides with tebuconazole or metconazole. At the highest level assayed, 1000 mg kg −1 , more than one‐third of the thirty‐one pesticides assayed did not impair baker's yeast gas production. Yeast cells were not inhibited by 300 mg active ingredients kg −1 in a mix of the pesticides, a concentration unlikely to be present in dough considering existing application rates in the field. Dough protected baker's yeast from pesticide residues. In sugared water, sub‐inhibitory concentrations of pesticides stimulated yeast fermentative activity. We conclude that it is unlikely that pesticide residues would impair baker's yeast gas production during bread dough fermentation.

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 score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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