MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6921820331 · doi:10.1139/cjps2013-301

Differences in compositional properties of a hulless barley cultivar grown in 23 environments in eastern Canada

2014· article· en· W6921820331 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultivarDPPHNutrientAntioxidantStarchPhenols

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abdel-Aal, E. M. and Choo, T.-M. 2014. Differences in compositional properties of a hulless barley cultivar grown in 23 environments in eastern Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 807-815. Barley grains hold a promise for several applications in food, feed, energy and malting industries due to their diverse components and functionalities. The current study aimed to investigate compositional and 2, 2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical (DPPH) scavenging properties of a newly developed hulless barley cultivar, AAC Azimuth. The cultivar was grown at 11 sites in 2010 and 12 sites in 2011 in Ontario and Quebec, Canada. The results showed that most of the nutrients examined in barley varied significantly among locations. In addition several components varied by year such as β-glucan, protein and phenols. There were significant year×location interactions for all of these nutrient components. The application of fungicides increased the content of moisture, but it decreased the content of phenols. The new cultivar contained relatively low amount of dietary fiber, average amount of β-glucan, and high levels of starch and protein, which could improve the feed and energy value. The cultivar also had total phenols and DPPH antioxidant capacity within the range of yellow and color barleys showing its antioxidant potential. The absence of hulls along with reasonable levels of protein, total antioxidant phenols and DPPH antioxidant capacity would promote the cultivar for food use subject to flour characteristics and functionality.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.004 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207