The electronic nose as a tool for the classification of fruit and grape wines from different Ontario wineries
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electronic nose technology is useful for classifying or ‘fingerprinting’ foods and beverages based on odour profiles. With a view to providing useful information on quality attributes, the Fox 3000 electronic nose (EN) was tested for the ability to characterize Ontario‐produced fruit wines. Eight fruit wines (blueberry, cherry, raspberry, blackcurrant, elderberry, cranberry, apple and peach) and four grape wines (red, Chardonnay, Riesling and ice wine) were each obtained from a minimum of five Ontario wineries. Replicates of each wine sample were dried onto membrane filters to remove ethanol, and analyzed by the EN. It was possible to separate completely each wine variety ( eg blueberry) based on differences between wineries; however, when all wine data were pooled, classification by variety was poor (58.7% correctly classified). Analysis of different wine varieties from a single winery revealed some misclassification. Wines could be separated into four distinct groups based on position on the discriminant function analysis map (79.9% correct). Fruit and grape wines were well separated from each other (75.9% correct), as were red and white wines (92.2% correct). The results show that the EN can discriminate fruit and grape wines into natural and useful groupings and may become an important tool for standardization of wine quality. Copyright © 2005 Society of Chemical Industry
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it