Evaluation of the performance of physically processed bean flours in gluten-free cake production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance of physically processed bean flours was evaluated in gluten-free cake production. Cakes prepared using unprocessed, dry heat (DH) treated, extruded and high pressure processed (HPP) bean flours were compared with chlorinated wheat flour cakes using instrumental and sensory analysis. Cake characteristics were related to differences in the content and structural makeup of starch and protein in flours. RVA testing in sucrose solution was explored as a quick and effective way to assess structure development potential of bean flour for cakes. Notably, DH bean flour contained intact starch granules embedded in a modified protein matrix and developed the highest viscosity in sucrose solution upon hydrothermal treatment. Cakes prepared using DH bean flour, therefore, were closer in structure to chlorinated wheat flour cakes. Instrumental analysis depicted that all bean flour cakes were darker, harder, less cohesive and inferior in terms of their pore structure to chlorinated wheat flour cakes. Sensory analysis showed that all bean flour cakes were significantly different from chlorinated wheat flour cake in appearance, flavour and texture. Although the processed bean flour cakes differed evidently from the chlorinated wheat flour cake, this study showed that physical processing of bean flour improved its functionality in gluten-free cake production. • Bean flour was evaluated as alternative to wheat flour in cake production. • Dry heat treated, extruded and high pressure processed bean flours were tested. • Differences in cake quality related to the flour’s starch and protein structural make-up. • Dry heat treated bean flour performed best in developing gluten-free cake 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 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".