MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994342039 · doi:10.1021/bp010164z

Production of Fructose and Ethanol from Sugar Beet Molasses Using <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i> ATCC 36858

2002· article· en· W1994342039 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotechnology Progress · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAgricultural Research ServiceLallemand
KeywordsSugar beetFructoseEthanol fuelSugarEthanolSaccharomyces cerevisiaeFood scienceChemistryEthanol fermentationBiochemistryFermentationYeastBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of enriched fructose syrups and ethanol from beet molasses using Saccharomyces cerevisiae ATCC 36858 was studied. In batch experiments with a total sugar concentration between 94.9 and 312.4 g/L, the fructose yield was above 93% of the theoretical value. The ethanol yield and volumetric productivity in the beet molasses media with sugar concentration below 276.2 g/L were in the range of 59-76% of theoretical value and between 0.48 and 2.97 g of ethanol/(L x h), respectively. The fructose fraction in the carbohydrates content of the produced syrups was more than 95% when the total initial sugar concentration in the medium was below 242.0 g/L. Some oligosaccharides and glycerol were also produced in all tested media. Raffinose and the produced oligosaccharides were completely consumed by the end of the fermentation process when the total initial sugar concentration was below 190.1 g/L. The glycerol concentration was below 16.1 g/L. The results could be useful for a potential industrial production of ethanol and high-fructose syrup from sugar beet molasses.

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 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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.199 · 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