MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136256553 · doi:10.1021/jf305025j

Assessing the Impact of Smoke Exposure in Grapes: Development and Validation of a HPLC-MS/MS Method for the Quantitative Analysis of Smoke-Derived Phenolic Glycosides in Grapes and Wine

2012· article· en· W2136256553 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yoji Hayasaka, Mango Parker, Gayle A. Baldock, Kevin H. Pardon, C.A. Black, David W. Jeffery, Markus Herderich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlberta Water Research Institute
KeywordsWineSmokeChemistryGlycosideChromatographyFood sciencePhenolsHigh-performance liquid chromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bushfires occur frequently in the vicinity of grape growing regions, resulting in smoke drifting over the vineyards. Wine made from smoked grapes is often downgraded or unfit for sale due to negative sensory characters. To manage or avoid the risk of producing smoke-affected wine, a diagnostic assay was developed for assessing the extent of smoke exposure in grapes and the resulting wines. The method relies on the quantitation of the glycosidic grape metabolites that are formed from major volatile phenols present in smoke. Using HPLC-MS/MS with APCI, a quantitation method for phenolic glycosides as smoke marker compounds was developed and validated. The method was confirmed to be of sufficient sensitivity and reliability to use as a diagnostic assay. On the basis of phenolic glycoside concentrations, grapes or wine can be assessed as smoke exposed or not, and the relative intensity of smoke exposure can be determined.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations87
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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