Chemometric analysis of gas chromatographic data—investigation of enological parameters of a bag‐in‐box white wine as affected by storage time and temperature
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a bag‐in‐box white wine was stored at 22, 35, and 45 °C for up to 48 days to produce a series of samples that exhibited different enological parameters (absorbance at 420 nm, free SO 2 , total SO 2 , total phenol, and total aldehyde). Wine samples were extracted with dichloromethane and analyzed using gas chromatography (GC) to generate volatile fingerprints. Principal component analysis (PCA) score plots of the first three principal components showed grouping trends that were influenced by storage time and temperature. PCA loading plots revealed that changes in chemical profiles were different for wines held at different storage temperatures. Storage time could be predicted accurately by partial least squares (PLS) regression of the GC data. Coefficients of determination ( R 2 ) were >0.99, and the standard error of prediction values were 0.4, 0.5, and 1.9 days over the test period of 15, 30, and 48 days, respectively. Using the same GC data with PLS analyses, the enological parameters could be accurately predicted from GC fingerprints, except for the predictions of SO 2 in a wine stored at 22 °C and total phenol in a wine stored at 45 °C. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it