MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378078166 · doi:10.3390/foods12102087

Research Progress of Quinoa Seeds (Chenopodium quinoa Wild.): Nutritional Components, Technological Treatment, and Application

2023· review· en· W4378078166 on OpenAlexafffund
Hongyan Mu, Sophia Jun Xue, Qingrui Sun, John Shi, Danyang Zhang, Deda Wang, Jianteng Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed and Plant Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsChenopodium quinoaAmaranthBiologyFood scienceDietary fiberBiotechnologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wild.) is a pseudo-grain that belongs to the amaranth family and has gained attention due to its exceptional nutritional properties. Compared to other grains, quinoa has a higher protein content, a more balanced amino acid profile, unique starch features, higher levels of dietary fiber, and a variety of phytochemicals. In this review, the physicochemical and functional properties of the major nutritional components in quinoa are summarized and compared to those of other grains. Our review also highlights the technological approaches used to improve the quality of quinoa-based products. The challenges of formulating quinoa into food products are addressed, and strategies for overcoming these challenges through technological innovation are discussed. This review also provides examples of common applications of quinoa seeds. Overall, the review underscores the potential benefits of incorporating quinoa into the diet and the importance of developing innovative approaches to enhance the nutritional quality and functionality of quinoa-based products.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations58
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicSeed and Plant BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207