MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7134839072 · doi:10.11002/fsp.2025.32.5.812

Chemical constituents and functional properties of maize ogi fortified with Amaranthus viridis

2025· article· en· W7134839072 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tunji Victor Odunlade, Kehinde Adekunbi Taiwo, Saka O. Gbadamosi, Adewumi Ronke Odunlade, Durodoluwa Joseph Oyedele, O.C. Adebooye

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Science and Preservation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed and Plant Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsOrganolepticNutrientPotassiumZincChemical constituentsCarbohydrateProximate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the effects of the inclusion of varied amounts of Amaranthus viridis leaf extracts into maize ogi. Proximate and mineral composition, as well as the functional and sensory properties, were evaluated using standard methods. The optimal conditions for the extraction of polyphenol-rich liquid from A. viridis leaves were 1:2 w/v leaf to water ratio at 50°C for a blending time of 10 min. The respective protein and ash contents of the resultant samples improved by 6.01-30.55% and 17.34-82.08% while the carbohydrate and fat contents were reduced. Magnesium (97.90-143.43 mg/100 g), calcium (12.39-58.85 mg/100 g), iron (29.37-70.65 mg/100 g), potassium (59.33-108.42 mg/100 g), and zinc (0.71-1.76 mg/100 g) increased with the increase in fortification levels of the maize ogi. The swelling, amylose, paste clarity, pasting viscosity, and organoleptic qualities (taste, color, flavor, mouthfeel, appearance, and acceptance) of the fortified products decreased with an increase in inclusion levels. The study concluded that the inclusion of the A. viridis leaf extracts into maize ogi could help in boosting nutrients of the products with no major impact on the organoleptic properties of the samples.

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 score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Science and PreservationSame topicSeed and Plant BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207