MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080238048 · doi:10.1007/s13213-010-0070-z

Histamine in Australian wines—a survey between 1982 and 2009

2010· article· en· W2080238048 on OpenAlex
Eveline Bartowsky, Creina S. Stockley

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Microbiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPolyamine Metabolism and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian GovernmentGovernment of South AustraliaAlberta Water Research Institute
KeywordsWineCadaverineMalolactic fermentationHistamineTyramineFood scienceChemistryFermentationBiogenic aminePutrescineLactic acidBiologyBiochemistryBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biogenic amines are found in a range of fermented foods and beverages, including wine. Absorption of these compounds in elevated concentrations may induce headaches, gastro-intestinal and respiratory distress. The main biogenic amines found in wine are histamine, tyramine, cadaverine and putrescine. Even though concentrations of histamine in wine are generally ten-fold lower than found in some fresh and other fermented foods, their presence may contribute to an adverse reaction when consumed in combination with other histamine-containing foods. It is well established that the main contribution of biogenic amines in wines is from lactic acid bacteria metabolism, especially during or after malolactic fermentation (MLF). A survey for histamine content of Australian red and white wines produced during 1982–1990 demonstrated a wide range of concentrations (mean 1.58 and 0.21 mg/L, respectively). A second survey of histamine content in red and white wines produced during 2003–2009 (mean 1.75 and 0.59 mg/L, respectively) showed that there were minimal changes in the mean histamine concentration over the period of the two sets of wines. All 238 Australian wines from 1982–1990 and 99 of 100 wines from 2003–2009 were below the former regulatory recommended limit of 10 mg/L for histamine in wine and were low compared to other wine-producing countries. Seven other biogenic amines measured in the Australian wines from 2003–2009 also had low means compared to other wine-producing countries.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.280 · 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