MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

In Search of Perfect Growth Media for Baker's Yeast Production: Mapping Patents

2011· article· en· W1972419406 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Gélinas

Bibliographic record

VenueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYeastRaw materialProduction (economics)BusinessIntellectual propertyGermanCommerceBiotechnologyFood scienceEconomicsBiologyPolitical scienceGeographyLawBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Baker's yeast is a key ingredient for bread and, on the long term, changes in its manufacturing process had a major impact on the baking industry. As shown by a review of 236 patents filed between 1900 and 2009, the development of suitable growth media for baker's yeast was critical to improve its acceptability by the baking industry mainly through reduced cost and improved appearance (pale color). Based on the abandon of patenting activity on artisan yeast production in dough, acceptable commercial baker's yeast appeared on the North American market around 1920, but probably 5 to 15 y earlier in Europe partly because German inventors were the most active to develop growth media for baker's yeast. During the same period, grain‐based media were replaced by diluted molasses that was cheaper. In the following 20 y, inventors put much energy on molasses clarification and miscellaneous sources of nitrogen to supplement it. Although molasses remains the basic raw material for baker's yeast manufacturing, alternatives are still sought for this application. In the early patent literature, cases were found where several inventors claimed intellectual property rights for the same invention described in patents filed in different countries and languages, which suggests that only thorough reading of patent specifications may distinguish inventorship from licenses and thus truly estimate patenting activity.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.107 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food SafetySame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207