The Impact of Wine Style and Sugar Addition in liqueur d’expedition (dosage) Solutions on Traditional Method Sparkling Wine Composition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of wine style and cane sugar addition in the liqueur d’expedition (dosage) solution on volatile aroma compounds (VOCs) in traditional method sparkling wine. There were 24 bottles of each treatment produced. Treatments were sparkling wine zero dosage (ZD); NV sparkling wine + sugar (BS); unoaked still Chardonnay wine + sugar (UC); Pinot noir 2009 sparkling wine + sugar (PN); Niagara produced Brandy + sugar (B) and Icewine (IW). The control treatment in the sensory analysis was an oaked still Chardonnay wine + sugar (OC) because the zero-dosage wine was not suitable for a difference test that compared wines with sugar to one without. Standard wine chemical parameters were analysed before disgorging and after liqueur d’expedition was added and included; pH, titratable acidity (TA g/L), alcohol (v/v %), residual sugar (RS g/L), free and total SO2 and total phenolics (A.U.). Volatile aroma compounds (VOCs) analysed by Headspace Solid- Phase Micro-Extraction Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC-MS) included two alcohols, and six ethyl esters. ZD wines had the highest foam height and highest dissolved oxygen level. Sugar affected VOC concentrations in all treatments at five weeks post-disgorging, but by 15 weeks after liqueur d’expedition addition, the wine with added sugar had similar VOC concentrations to the ZD wines. The type of wines used in the dosage solutions had more influence on VOC concentrations than sugar addition.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it