MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325139961 · doi:10.1021/jf5043618

Authenticity Analysis of Pear Juice Employing Chromatographic Fingerprinting

2014· article· en· W2325139961 on OpenAlexafffund
Jamie L. Willems, Nicholas H. Low

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPEARChemistryChromatographyArbutinSucroseSugarFructoseSorbitolGas chromatographyOrange juiceFood scienceDetection limitFlame ionization detectorBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pear juice is predominately composed of carbohydrates/polyols (>95% of the total soluble solids), making it susceptible to adulteration by the addition of less expensive commercial sweeteners. In this research, the major carbohydrate and polyol (fructose, glucose, sucrose, and sorbitol) content of 32 pure pear juices representing five world producing regions and three years of production was determined. Additionally, methods employing oligosaccharide profiling to detect the debasing of these samples with four commercial sweeteners (HFCS 55 and 90, TIS, and HIS) were developed using capillary gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (CGC-FID) and high-performance liquid chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection (HPAE-PAD). Detection limits for the four commercial sweeteners ranged from 0.5 to 5.0% (v/v). In addition, the developed CGC-FID method could be used to (a) detect the addition of pear to apple juice via arbutin detection and (b) determine if a pear juice was produced using enzymatic liquefaction via the presence of O-β-d-glucopyranosyl-(1→4)-d-glucopyranose (cellobiose), all within a single chromatographic analysis.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207