MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408975547 · doi:10.1016/j.jafr.2025.101866

A comparative nutrient analysis of multiple Saskatchewan wild rice (Zizania palustris L.) populations and commercially available grains

2025· article· en· W4408975547 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Asket Kaur, Yongfeng Ai, Sahar Zamani, Mark Smith, Blaine J Chartrand, Pankaj Bhowmik, Timothy F. Sharbel, Albert Vandenberg, Haixia Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agriculture and Food Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan PolytechnicPlant Biotechnology InstituteUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersCollege of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of SaskatchewanMinistry of Agriculture - SaskatchewanUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsNutrientBiologyAgronomyGeographyBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wild rice ( Zizania spp.) is an aquatic grass grown in North America and East Asia. It is an ancient food source for Indigenous Peoples and is now commercially available as a specialty grain. Despite interest in its nutritional profile, a systematic investigation is lacking. In this work, a thorough analysis of the nutrient components in fresh and processed wild rice from northern Saskatchewan was conducted. This covered macronutrients (proteins, starch and lipids), micronutrients (vitamin Bs and minerals), phenolic compounds and their antioxidant potential. Compared to selected cultivated rice and wheat grains, wild rice has higher protein content (9.8–12.1 %), similar levels of starch (73.7–76.5 %), and lower amounts of lipid (around 1 %) with a significantly higher proportion of omega-3 fatty acids (50–57 %) than rice (33–40 %). Compared to wheat, wild rice has twice the level of total vitamin B (77.1–107.2 μg/g), and three times the concentration of soluble phenolic compounds (87.6–111.7 μg/g). Strong antioxidant potential was also observed in wild rice (2.6–4.9 mg/g, trolox equivalent). Wild rice is a good source of minerals including potassium (1963–3031 μg/g), sulfur (1385–1757 μg/g), phosphorous (2215–3667 μg/g), magnesium (662–969 μg/g), and calcium (73–110 μg/g). The results showed that wild rice is a nutrition rich grain well suited for a healthy diet. • Wild rice has twice the level of total vitamin Bs as found in wheat. • Wild rice has higher antioxidant capability than wheat or cultivated rice. • Industrial processing impacts the nutritional quality and bioactivity of wild rice. • Wild rice is shown to be a nutrition-rich, gluten-free healthy grain.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agriculture and Food ResearchSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207