COMPARISON OF NEW AND EXISTING THRESHOLD METHODS FOR EVALUATING SULFUR COMPOUNDS IN DIFFERENT BASE WINES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This research determined the aroma threshold of three sulfur compounds by novel (R‐index) and standard ASTM International methodologies. Thresholds for dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and ethyl thioacetate (EtSOAc) were determined in a “model” wine, a “neutral” white wine (Sauvignon blanc) and a “fruity” white wine (Gewurztraminer) by 24 untrained panelists. Panelists were presented with two replicates for the ASTM methods and four replicates for the R‐index method. The group threshold, for each compound, was calculated by ASTM E679, ASTM E1432 and R‐index methods. The range of aroma thresholds obtained for DMDS, DMS and EtSOAc in different bases were 7.5–151.0, 9.4–651.0 and 8.5–95.9 µg/L, respectively. The thresholds were influenced significantly by wine type and the method of evaluation. In general, the thresholds obtained using the R‐index method were higher yet significantly corrrelated with the thresholds obtained by ASTM methods (r = 0.9899, R‐index and ASTM E1432; r = 0.9848, R‐index and ASTM E679). The thresholds in the neutral wines were observed to be lower as compared with those in the aromatic wines. This research was successful in determining sulfur thresholds for possible use in quality control and research by the wine industry and in understanding the relationship among thresholds reported by different methods. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS This research evaluated the aroma thresholds for sulfur compounds in wines by different methods. The new method, R‐index, was significantly correlated with the standard methodologies (ASTM International) and could be used to save time and money.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".