Le Polyéthylène Téréphtalate, un emballage pour le vin de qualité ? Partie 2/2 : Évolution au cours du stockage d’un vin rosé conditionné en bouteilles PET avec absorbeur d’oxygène
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Cinsault rosé wine was packaged in glass bottles and PET with 1 and 3 % oxygen scavenger and stored 12 months. Using PET with 3 % scavenger did not allow the maintenance of CO2 but limited oxygen entry protecting SO2 as for wine in glass bottle. The loss of tannins and anthocyanins was more pronounced for wines packaged in PET 1 %, whereas it was the same for wine in glass or PET 3 %. Likewise, aroma compounds aging markers as dioxanes were found in similar manner in wine stored in PET with 3 % and in the glass while the oxidation of methionol is clearly higher in the PET 1 %. Sensory analysis has confirmed these results with a wine with a lighter color and honey and cooked wine smells more pronounced when packaged in PET with 1 % absorber compared to glass packaging and PET with 3 % oxygen scavenger.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".