MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343369316 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.5b03641

<i>In Situ</i> Determination of Fructose Isomer Concentrations in Wine Using <sup>13</sup>C Quantitative Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy

2015· article· en· W2343369316 on OpenAlexafffund
Cinzia Colombo, Clara Aupic, Andrew R. Lewis, Bernardine M. Pinto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWineFructoseChemistrySweetnessNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopySugarSpectroscopyFermentationChromatographyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Food scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A practical method for simultaneously quantifying fructose and ethanol contents in wines using (13)C quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance (qNMR) spectroscopy is reported. Less than 0.6 mL of wine is needed, and the method leaves an unmodified sample available for subsequent testing or additional analyses. The relative ratios of the five known fructose isomers in ethanolic solutions at different pH and their variations with the temperature are also reported. The data are correlated with the sweetness of wines. The technique was applied to commercially available wines, and the results are compared to other methods. Sugar levels above 0.6 g/L can also be measured. A simple adaptation of the method permits measurement of different carbohydrates using integration of single peaks for each compound, in combination with an external reference (13)C qNMR spectrum of a sample with a known concentration. The method can be applied at all stages of wine production, including grape must, during fermentation, and before and after bottling.

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 score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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