MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Malts and Malting

2005· other· en· W1589744560 on OpenAlex
Chris J.J. Mulder

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueKirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsCanada Malting (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrewingSteepingRaw materialCropGerminationAgronomyFood scienceHorticultureBiologyFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The malting process consists of three key steps: steeping, whereby barley is moistened to about 45% moisture; germination, wherein rootlets (sprouts) and a stem (acrospire) emerge while enzymes are formed that alter the cellular structure and composition; and kilning, where barley is dried to preserve enzyme activity and to impart flavor. Nearly all of the malt produced is used to make beer. Barley is grown in Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Montana, and other western States. Barley varieties are developed specifically for good malting and brewing traits. Less than 50% of the U.S. barley crop is converted into malt. World malt production in 2003 was ∼12 million metric tons. The 2003 U.S. production was 2.6 million tons, with stagnant growth during the last few years. Large United States and Canadian producers are Busch Agricultural Resources, Inc., Cargill Malt, Conagra Malt, Rahr Malting Co., and International Malting Co. There is excess malting capacity, resulting in low margin commodity pricing. Production and raw material costs are ∼$230/t.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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