PERCEPTION OF MOUTHFEEL SENSATIONS ELICITED BY RED WINE ARE ASSOCIATED WITH SENSITIVITY TO 6‐N‐PROPYLTHIOURACIL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".