MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460693691 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2016.07.010

Comparison data of common and abundant terpenes at different grape development stages in Shiraz wine grapes

2016· article· en· W2460693691 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pangzhen Zhang, Sigfredo Fuentes, Tracey Siebert, Mark Krstic, Markus Herderich, Snow Barlow, Kate Howell

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian GovernmentAgreenSkillsUniversity of MelbourneAlberta Water Research Institute
KeywordsAromaWineTerpeneTerpenoidRipeningVitis viniferaVineHorticultureWine grapeAroma of wineBotanyBiologyChemistryFood scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terpenoids were extracted from grape vine bunches during plant development and analysed by GC-MSD. The grapevines analysed were from a commercial harvest of Vitis vinifera cv. Shiraz. The terpenoids were analysed from 4 weeks post flowering (wpf) to harvest in one season. The data are presented with the structure of the compound and aroma profile and semi-quantified. The sub-class of sesquiterpenes was given special attention, and this data set describes the first analysis of these compounds during ripening of this important economic crop. Sesquiterpenes may have a hitherto described contribution to wine aroma. This data set may provide insight into biosynthetic pathways and aroma chemistry. Interpretation of our data and further discussion can be found in "Terpene evolution during the development of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz grapes" (Zhang et al., 2016) [1].

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)0.000
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207