MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590349205 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.16-0404

Determination of Ethanol in Kombucha Products: Single-Laboratory Validation, First Action 2016.12

2017· article· en· W2590349205 on OpenAlexaff
Ebersole Blake, Ying Liu, Rich Schmidt, Matt Eckert, Paula N. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTea Polyphenols and Effects
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryEthanol contentEthanolFermentationChromatographyFood scienceAlcoholDetection limitBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kombucha is a fermented nonalcoholic beverage that has drawn government attention due to the possible presence of excess ethanol (≥0.5% alcohol by volume; ABV). A validated method that provides better precision and accuracy for measuring ethanol levels in kombucha is urgently needed by the kombucha industry. The current study validated a method for determining ethanol content in commercial kombucha products. The ethanol content in kombucha was measured using headspace GC with flame ionization detection. An ethanol standard curve ranging from 0.05 to 5.09% ABV was used, with correlation coefficients greater than 99.9%. The method detection limit was 0.003% ABV and the LOQ was 0.01% ABV. The RSDr ranged from 1.62 to 2.21% and the Horwitz ratio ranged from 0.4 to 0.6. The average accuracy of the method was 98.2%. This method was validated following the guidelines for single-laboratory validation by AOAC INTERNATIONAL and meets the requirements set by AOAC SMPR 2016.001, "Standard Method Performance Requirements for Determination of Ethanol in Kombucha."

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicTea Polyphenols and EffectsFrench-language works237,207