MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990502427 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2012.658587

Methoxypyrazine Analysis and Influence of Viticultural and Enological Procedures on their Levels in Grapes, Musts, and Wines

2013· review· en· W1990502427 on OpenAlexaff
Davinder Sidhu, Jensen A. Lund, Yorgos Kotseridis, Cédric Saucier

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryAromaWineryWineVitis viniferaOenologyAroma of wineFlavorFood scienceWinemakingViticultureHorticultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review discusses the factors that affect the concentrations of methoxypyrazines (MPs) and the techniques used to analyze MPs in grapes, musts, and wines. MPs are commonly studied pyrazines in food science due to their contribution of aroma and flavor to numerous vegetables such as peas and asparagus. They are described as highly odorous compounds with a very low olfactory threshold. The grape varietals that exhibit green or herbaceous aromas that are characteristic of MPs are predominantly Vitis vinifera cv. Cabernet Sauvignon and Sauvignon Blanc, but include others. The most extensively studied MPs include 3-isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine, 3-isopropyl-2-methoxypyrazine, and 3-sec-butyl-2-methoxypyrazine. It outlines the significance of methoxypyrazines in grapes, musts, and wines in terms of the concentrations that are capable of contributing their sensory characteristics to wines. This review discusses methods for analyzing MPs including gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy (one or two dimension) and high-performance liquid chromatography, the appropriate extraction techniques, and the efficacy of these methods. Additionally, this review explores factors that affect pyrazine content of grapes, must, and wines, such as the effects of different viticultural practices, effects of light exposure and grape maturation, climate, soil, the multi-colored Asian lady beetle and the effects of different vinification processes.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations72
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207