The impact of closures, including screw cap with three different headspace volumes, on the composition, colour and sensory properties of a Cabernet Sauvignon wine during two years' storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results from an investigation to assess the development of a Cabernet Sauvignon wine bottled with different closures including a screw cap (ROTE, roll-on-tamper-evident) and different ullage volumes (4, 16 and 64 mL of air). The wines were filled manually, sealed using commercial equipment and stored under controlled temperature and humidity conditions. The concentration of free and total SO2, and phenolic compounds including anthocyanins, selected pigments, pigmented polymers and tannins, and colour measurements using spectral and CIELAB methods, have been determined in the wines over a two-year storage period. In addition, sensory analysis of the aroma and palate properties of the wines was performed after 6, 9, 11, 18 and 24 months' storage. The wines sealed under the screw cap with either 4 or 64 mL ullage volumes were clearly different from each other and the other treatments in the study, and these differences were seen within the first year after bottling. The wines bottled under the more commercially relevant conditions, screw cap with 16 mL headspace, synthetic closure or natural bark closure, were more similar in both composition and sensory characters, although subtle differences between different closures were evident. ‘Rubbery’ and ‘struck flint’ like aromas (generically termed reduced aroma) were detected in some of the wines in the study but were not a large or dominating character. The scores for this character were highest in the wine sealed under the screw cap with the smallest ullage volume.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".