MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288884615 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v11n3p47

Gluten-Free Crackers Preparation

2022· article· en· W4288884615 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gamal Saad El-Hadidy, Hala H. Shaban, Wael Mospah Mospah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceRice flourGluten freeGlutenWheat flourRaw materialMathematicsChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present work was carried out to prepare gluten free crackers of high quality for celiac ailment patients. Gluten free crackers prepared from rice flour, lentil flour and quinoa flour is an innovative and highly nutritious snacks produce. The chemical analyzed included as minerals and amino acids of broken rice, lentil and quinoa flour and its blends was estimated. Then, chemical composition for gluten free crackers blends was estimated and the results presented that ash, crude protein, fat and fiber contents were higher in all blends prepared using rice flour, quinoa flour and lentil flour than that blend prepared using rice flour. All sensory parameters of free gluten crackers samples B2, B3, B4 and B5 prepared using rice flour, lentil flour, and quinoa flour were somewhat higher than crackers prepared from rice flour B1. Hardness decreased from 74.97 newton in blend (1) made from 100% rice flour to 35.19 newton in blend (5) made from 50% rice flour, 25% lentil flour and 25% quinoa flour. Finally, it could make some bakery products using raw materials free of gluten like rice flour, lentil flour and quinoa flour with high quality that are suitable for celiac ailment patients.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207