MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100134388 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v3n2p91

The Market Potential of Grape Waste Alternatives

2014· article· en· W2100134388 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPomaceRaw materialFood scienceSustainabilityBusinessConsumer marketNutraceuticalBiotechnologyPulp and paper industryChemistryEngineeringMarketingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>During wine production, approximately 25% of the grape weight results in by-product/waste (termed ‘pomace’ which is comprised of skins and seeds). Currently, most pomace is being composted to be reintroduced into the vineyards to complete the carbon cycle. Due to the increasing consumer demand for the use of natural over synthetic compounds, and because of increased attention to sustainability of agricultural practices (Fontana, Antoniolli, & Bottini, 2013), there is a vast array of applications for grape pomacebioactives including: functional foods (dietary fiber + polyphenols), food processing (biosurfactants), cosmetics (grapeseed oil + antioxidants), pharmaceutical/biomedical (pullulan) and supplements (grape pomace powder). To date, there has been no assessment as to the market potential for value-added usage of grape pomace. This paper seeks to address this gap. The annual production of grape pomace along with its multitude of applications, create an opportunity to discover an unexploited market with great commercial potential.</p>

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.274 · 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