MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978392429 · doi:10.3390/fermentation1010003

Evaluation of Zygosaccharomyces bailii to Metabolize Residual Sugar Present in Partially-Fermented Red Wines

2015· article· en· W1978392429 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J.M. Zuehlke, Bradford C. Childs, Charles G. Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueFermentation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLallemandNorthwest Center for Small Fruits ResearchWashington State University
KeywordsWineSugarFood scienceFructoseFermentationChemistryAlcoholEthanol fermentationAlcohol toleranceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An alternative approach to remove residual sugar from red wines using strains of Zygosaccharomyces bailli was studied. Fructose (40 or 60 g/L) and alcohol (13%, 15%, or 17% v/v) were added to a Cabernet Sauvignon wine before inoculation of Z. bailii B2, B6, or W3, or Saccharomyces cerevisiae EC1118. Most yeasts maintained populations ≥106 cfu/mL up to 100 days—the exceptions being W3 and EC1118, which declined to ≤30 cfu/mL in 17% alcohol wines beyond day 75. Wines containing 40 g/L fructose and 13% alcohol achieved dryness (<2 g/L), except those inoculated with B6. At 15% alcohol, B6, W3, and EC1118 consumed large levels of fructose (>80% of the 40 g/L; >50% of the 60 g/L) but limited amounts from wines containing 17% alcohol. Volatile acidities were higher in wines inoculated with strains of Z. bailli compared to S. cerevisiae (0.88 and 0.75 g/L, respectively). Fructose utilization in a partially-fermented Syrah wine varied, with dryness achieved by EC1118 or a mixed culture of B2 and B6. While Z. bailii metabolized residual fructose in wines of varying alcohol content, the use of S. cerevisiae EC1118 was generally as effective and did not produce as much volatile acidity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFermentationSame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207