MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PERCEPTION OF MOUTHFEEL SENSATIONS ELICITED BY RED WINE ARE ASSOCIATED WITH SENSITIVITY TO 6‐N‐PROPYLTHIOURACIL

2006· article· en· W2148447544 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sensory Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWinePsychologyMouthfeelAudiologyTastePerceptionContext (archaeology)Food scienceChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This study investigated the relationship between sensitivity to the bitterness of 6‐n‐propylthiouracil (PROP) – a genetically determined trait used as an index of general taste acuity – and a range of oral sensations elicited by 16 varietal red wines. Seventeen subjects were trained using descriptive analysis (DA) techniques and developed a lexicon consisting of three taste and 10 tactile attributes representing sensations experienced both in‐mouth (IM) and after expectoration (AE). Analysis of variance showed that PROP super‐tasters (ST) ( n = 8) rated 11 of these 13 sensations differently compared to PROP nontasters (NT) ( n = 8), specifically acidity, saltiness, heat/irritation, tingle/prickle, particulate IM, particulate AE, smoothness IM, smoothness AE, grippy/adhesive, mouthcoat and overall astringency. The greater sensitivity of ST to the textural components of red wine is discussed in the context of greater lingual acuity and implications for DA panels, psychophysics and wine consumer behavior.

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)0.001
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 score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · 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