MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SENSORY AND PHYSIO‐CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF MEMBRANE FILTERED APPLE JUICES<sup>1</sup>

2000· article· en· W2159820483 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret A. Cliff, Lana Fukumoto, Marjorie King, BARB J. EDWARDS, Benoît Girard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Quality · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAromaChemistryFlavorFood scienceAstringentAscorbic acidPasteurizationMembraneTasteBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Shelf‐stable apple juices were prepared using two ceramic and four polymeric tubular membranes of varying pore sizes and evaluated using color matching and triangle tests. Juices from 9 kDa and 20 kDa membranes were different in color and aroma/flavor from the other membranes, the characteristics of which did not differ from each other. A full sensory profile was obtained for experimental juices produced using a 0.02 μm ceramic membrane and from commercial pasteurized apple juice. Experimental juices were prepared from fresh and stored apples with and without ascorbic acid. Twelve judges evaluated color; cooked/caramelized, appley, fruity and green aromas and seven flavor attributes (cooked/caramelized, appley, fruity, green, sweet, sour, astringence). Analysis of variance and principal component analysis revealed that membrane filtered juices lacked the cooked/caramelized aroma and had a green flavor compared with the commercial apple juice. Membrane filtered juices prepared from freshly harvested apples had less appley and fruity aroma and flavor, but were more sour and astringent than juices prepared from stored apples. Ascorbic acid treatment significantly reduced the yellow color and increased the astringence of juices.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food QualitySame topicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementFrench-language works237,207