MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317881316 · doi:10.33425/2833-0307.1005

Nutritional, Phytochemical and Carbohydrate Profile of Giant Swamp Taro [Cyrtosperma merkusii (Hassk.). Schott]

2022· article· en· W4317881316 on OpenAlexaff
Ma. Resadel O Santonia, Aimee Sheree A. Barrion, Marites G. Yee, Lotis E. Mopera

Bibliographic record

VenueEndocrinology Metabolism and Nutrition · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood and Agricultural Sciences
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColocasia esculentaPhytochemicalFood scienceBiologyStarchAmyloseHorticultureCropCarotenoidNutrientBotanyChemistryAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Giant swamp taro is an underutilized root crop in the Philippines. The nutrient, phytochemicals, and carbohydrate profile of the processed taro from the cultivated and wild varieties were measured and the storage stability of the flour was determined. The boiled taro from cultivated and wild varieties contained approximately 385.67 and 377.29 kcal, respectively. Beta-carotene and vitamin C contents of the boiled and floured products from wild variety were found to be significantly higher than that from the cultivated variety. However, the iron, zinc and calcium in the boiled cultivated variety was significantly higher than its wild variety. The flour produced from the wild variety were significantly higher in iron, zinc and calcium than the cultivated variety. The boiled and floured cultivated taro had significantly higher amounts of phenols and flavonoids while significantly higher amounts of tannins and saponins were measured in the boiled and floured wild taro. The processed products from both local taro varieties had > 75% antioxidant activity. The boiled and floured cultivated taro were found to contain significantly higher amounts of amylose, dietary fiber and resistant starch compared with products from wild taro variety. The glycemic index of processed forms of taro made from the two local varieties had a range of 64-70% (intermediate).

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndocrinology Metabolism and NutritionSame topicFood and Agricultural SciencesFrench-language works237,207