MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283804635 · doi:10.1002/aocs.12616

Analysis of cruciferin content in whole seeds of <scp><i>Brassica napus</i> L</scp>. by <scp>near‐infrared</scp> spectroscopy

2022· article· en· W4283804635 on OpenAlexafffund
Ashley Ammeter, Kenny K. Y. So, Robert W. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Oil Chemists Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanola Council of CanadaResearch Manitoba
KeywordsBrassicaPopulationFood scienceIngredientHigh proteinNear-infrared spectroscopyBiologyChemistryAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Globally, there is an increasing demand for sources of plant‐based protein. While Brassica napus L. is an important oilseed crop worldwide, there is also interest in improving its ability to serve as a valuable source of plant‐based protein. Cruciferin, a seed storage protein that makes up 60% of the protein found in mature seeds of B. napus , is of interest for human consumption as a source of protein and as an ingredient in food products due to its functional properties. Existing methods for quantification of cruciferin protein are often time consuming and destroy the seed. This study explored the potential for the measurement of cruciferin protein content in whole seeds of B. napus by near‐infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), to allow for efficient and non‐destructive screening of breeding material. An enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)‐based reference method was utilized to assess cruciferin content in a diverse population of B. napus . Scanning of whole seed samples produced spectra that were used to develop NIRS calibration equations. Statistical analysis of the calibration results indicated that the NIRS equations developed are poorly suited for prediction of cruciferin content.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Oil Chemists SocietySame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207