Enhancement of the functional, pasting and textural properties of poundo yam flour through cassava flour supplementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, poundo yam flour was supplemented with cassava flour (5, 15, 30 and 50%) and the functionality of the flour and quality of the cooked dough were determined. The composite flours and yam flour (approx. 56%) were more dispersible than the cassava flour (approx. 50%). Cassava flour addition significantly (p ≤ 0.05) increased the lightness of poundo yam flour (75.65-84.67) and the ability of the flours to absorb water, but the lightness values (61.60-64.79) of the cooked dough did not change significantly (p > 0.05). Samples with cassava flour were firmer (7.56-22.87 N), stickier (2.51-5.92 Ns) and gummier (2.57-5.48 N) than the control dough. Sensory ratings were similar across the cooked poundo yam samples. This study has demonstrated that cassava flour can be used to supplement yam flour for poundo yam flour production.
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".