MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059033460 · doi:10.1021/jf0514672

Changes in the Concentration of Yeast-Derived Volatile Compounds of Red Wine during Malolactic Fermentation with Four Commercial Starter Cultures of<i>Oenococcus oeni</i>

2005· article· en· W2059033460 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maurizio Ugliano, Luigi Moio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLallemand
KeywordsOenococcus oeniMalolactic fermentationWineChemistryEthyl lactateFood scienceAroma of wineFermentationWine faultAromaFatty acidStarterYeastBiochemistryYeast in winemakingBacteriaLactic acidSaccharomyces cerevisiaeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of malolactic fermentation (MLF) on the concentration of volatile compounds released by yeasts during the production of red wine were investigated by inoculation with four commercial starters of Oenococcus oeni. Volatile compounds in wine at the end of MLF were extracted, analyzed by GC-MS and GC, and compared with those extracted form a noninoculated reference sample. Several esters known to play a role in the aroma profile of red wine, such as C4-C8 ethyl fatty acid esters and 3-methylbutyl acetate, were found to increase with MLF, and their final concentration was dependent on the bacterial starter employed for the induction of MLF. The overall increase of ethyl fatty acid esters was generally larger than the one observed for acetate esters. Ethyl lactate, 3-hydroxybutanoate, 2-phenylethanol, methionol, and gamma-butyrolactone were also increased by bacterial metabolism. The impact of MLF on other volatiles or red wine, including several higher alcohols, fatty acids, and nitrogen compounds, was generally negligible.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations142
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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