MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403734513 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.17375

Application of yellow mustard gum-fenugreek mixed gum in preparation of non-dairy fat whipping cream

2024· article· en· W4403734513 on OpenAlexaff
Xinya Wang, H. Douglas Goff, Steve W. Cui

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPolysaccharides Composition and Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRheologyEmulsionFood scienceStabiliserMaterials scienceChemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Yellow mustard gum (YMG) and fenugreek gum (FG) are both natural hydrocolloids derived from plant seeds. They showed synergistic effects of increased viscosity upon mixing thus expanding their applications. In this study, a synergistic YMG-FG (7:3) blend of different total gum concentrations (0%, 0.05%, 0.1%, 0.15%, 0.2% and 0.25%, w/w) was used to develop a whipping cream formula with dairy fat replaced by palm kernel oil. Whipping creams of both liquid emulsion and whipped cream were characterised in terms of particle size, rheological properties, whippability and foam stability, texture and microstructure. The liquid emulsion before whipping showed a shear-thinning behaviour regardless of the gum concentration. Upon whipping, the overrun of whipped cream decreased while the foam stability increased with increasing gum mixture content. The whipped cream with the addition of gum mixture retained the shape after storing overnight at 22 °C in comparison with two collapsed commercial samples. The whipped cream with 0.1% gum mixture exhibited optimal foam stability and textural properties among all the samples. Overall, the synergistic blend of YMG-FG can be used as a natural stabiliser in formulating non-dairy fat whipping cream products to improve foam stability and airy/fluffy texture.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicPolysaccharides Composition and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207