MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984777230 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.12332

Chemical and volatile composition of lychee wines fermented with four commercial <i><scp>S</scp>accharomyces cerevisiae</i> yeast strains

2013· article· en· W1984777230 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shao‐Quan Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLallemandMinistry of Education - Singapore
KeywordsFood scienceWineFermentationChemistryEthyl hexanoateYeastWine faultTorulaspora delbrueckiiMalolactic fermentationPopulationKefirComposition (language)Yeast in winemakingSaccharomyces cerevisiaeBiochemistryLactic acidBiologySaccharomycesBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This study evaluated the chemical and volatile composition of lychee wines fermented with four commercial yeast strains of S accharomyces cerevisiae : EC ‐1118, R 2, 71 B and MERIT .ferm. Yeast cell population, p H , malic acid, ammonia and some amino acids had significant differences between strain 71 B and other strains. There were strain variations with regard to degradation and retention of some juice volatiles as well as formation of new volatile compounds such as most esters and certain terpene compounds. Ethyl octanoate had the highest odour activity value ( OAV of 500–1100), followed by ethyl hexanoate (about 50–85), among the common odorants in all lychee wines. Ethyl octanoate reached its highest OAV (1077) in the lychee wine fermented with strain EC 1118, whereas ethyl hexanoate had the highest OAV (85) in the wine fermented with strain MERIT .ferm. Cis ‐rose oxide, the character‐impact volatile in lychee juice with highest OAV (161), was dramatically reduced to trace levels after fermentation.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207