MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detection Thresholds for 2‐Isopropyl‐3‐Methoxypyrazine in Concord and Niagara Grape Juice

2008· article· en· W2026227963 on OpenAlexafffund
Gary J. Pickering, A. Karthik, Debra Inglis, M. K. Sears, K. Ker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRipenessFlavorFood scienceDetection thresholdFlavourChemistryHorticultureBiologyComputer scienceRipening

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2-isopropyl-3-methoxypyrazine (IPMP) is the compound responsible for the off-flavor known as ladybug taint, which occurs when Harmnonia axyridis beetles become incorporated with the grapes during juice processing. It is also an important grape-derived component of juice flavor in some varieties. The main objective of this study was to determine the orthonasal (ON) and retronasal (RN) detection thresholds for IPMP in juice. The ASTM E679 ascending forced choice method of limits was used to determine detection thresholds for 26 individuals in Concord and Niagara juices. Group best estimate thresholds (BETs) averaged 0.93 ng/L and were 50% and 21% higher in Concord than in Niagara juices for ON and RN evaluation, respectively. Group BETs for IPMP (ng/L) for Concord were ON: 1.11; RN: 1.02 and for Niagara were ON: 0.74; RN: 0.84. Variation in individual detection thresholds was observed, although familiarity with ladybug taint was not associated with individual threshold values. We conclude that humans are very sensitive to IPMP in juice, and that detection thresholds are more strongly influenced by grape variety than evaluation mode. These results may assist juice producers in establishing tolerance levels for IPMP in juice affected by ladybug taint or derived from grapes of suboptimal ripeness.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations20
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207