Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 181

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Rheological Properties of Fish Gelatins

Gudmundsson, M.·2002·Journal of Food Science

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The rheological properties of fish gelatins (cod, megrim, tuna, and tilapia) and conventional gelatin (bovine and porcine) were compared. The different fish gelatins had from low to high viscosity values. They also had from low to high gel strength values. However, they had lower melting and gelling temperatures than gels from conventional gelatins. Cold‐water fish gelatins were more different from conventional gelatins than warm water fish gelatins reflecting the different amino acid composition, as cold‐water fish gelatins are low in imino acids. Binary blends of cod and other fish or conventional gelatins seemed to be completely compatible.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb09522.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Metadata

Authors
Gudmundsson, M.
Venue
Journal of Food Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-08
Volume
67
Issue
6
Pages
2172-2176
ISSN
  • 0022-1147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1750-3841
OpenAlex
W1983888230
Cited by
181
References
0
FWCI
1.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rheological Properties of Fish Gelatins. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb09522.x
The paper
Gudmundsson, M. (2002). Rheological Properties of Fish Gelatins. Journal of Food Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb09522.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.