MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147548920 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v1n4p44

A Case-study on the Selection of Promising Functional Starter Strains from Grape Yeasts: A Report by Student of Food Science and Technology Degree, University of Foggia (Southern Italy)

2012· article· en· W2147548920 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antonio Bevilacqua, Francesco Pio Casanova, Ersilia Arace, Salvatore Augello, Rosangela Carfagna, Annamaria Cedola, Susanna Delli Carri, Fabio De Stefano, Grazia Di Maggio, Valeria Marinelli, Arcangela Mazzeo, Angela Racioppo, Maria Rosaria Corbo, Milena Sinigaglia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarterFood scienceYeastBiotechnologyBiologyFermentationProbioticChemistryBiochemistryBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main aim of this research, performed by some students in Food Science and Technology of Foggia University, is to show how perform the selection of a functional starter through a step-by-step procedure. Fifteen yeast strains were studied in order to assess their biotechnological traits, e.g. catalase, urease, B-glucosidase, pectolytic and xylanolytic activities, production of H2S, resistance to copper, SO2 and acetic acid, growth at different temperatures, alkaline pH, in presence of different amounts of ethanol and glucose, and some probiotic properties. After studying these abilities, yeasts were identified through the miniaturized system API 20 C AUX and two kinds of multivariate analyses (Cluster Analysis and Principal Component Analysis) were performed to highlight the best strains.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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