Effect of dry-fractionated pea protein on the physicochemical properties and the nutritional features of gluten-free focaccia flat bread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this work was to formulate a gluten-free focaccia flat bread based on rice and corn flour fortified with dry-fractionated pea protein concentrate (55 g/100 g protein content). A simplex-centroid mixture design with ten formulations helped to study how the flour ratios influenced the physical and sensory properties of dough and breads. The special cubic model significantly described all the responses determined in the dough and flour mixes, and most of those determined in the focaccia. The pea protein concentrate influenced the pasting properties of the flour mixes resulting in a decrease of viscosity. The midpoint of the experimental domain (focaccia containing 5 g/100 g of pea protein concentrate and 20 g/100 g of rice flour and corn flour each) was optimal, being not affected by the discolorations typical of pea (a* = 11.97, b* = 31.86, corresponding to an orange hue), having crumb hardness and chewiness of 9.11 N and 4.83 N, respectively, and moderate legume odor and flavor (5.6 and 5.3 c.u. in a 0–9 scale, respectively). The selected formulation could be labelled as “source of protein” (energy value provided by proteins >12%), “source of fiber” (fiber >3 g/100 g), and “low-fat” (fat <3 g/100 g).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".