MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DEVELOPMENT OF A VOCABULARY FOR PROFILING APPLE JUICES

2000· article· en· W2036977416 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Quality · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularyLexiconProfiling (computer programming)Computer scienceTest (biology)Natural language processingInformation retrievalLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A protocol for selecting an apple juice lexicon and for training a company panel was developed, using a series of 21 ‘taste’ sessions. Individual assessment, round‐table discussion and consensus were used to identify reference standards for six aroma and 11 flavor attributes and 13 ‘off ‘notes. Duo‐trio tests were used to test the ability of the panelists to recognize the references and confirm their appropriateness in describing the attribute. When panelists' mean scores for the references were placed as anchors on the line scales, panel performance was improved. The development process not only served to train the panel, but was a ‘team’ building experience which benefited the company at large.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.038 · 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