MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796239049 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v7n3p50

Production Process Effect on Mexican Agave Syrups Quality: A Preliminary Study

2018· article· en· W2796239049 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Blanca I. Maldonado-Guevara, Sandra T. Martín del Campo, Anaberta Cardador‐Martínez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgaveChemistryMoistureFurfuralFood scienceHydrolysisPulp and paper industryBotanyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, the quality parameters of commercial agave syrups produced in five different Mexican states and with different production process were evaluated. Regulated parameters (pH, Moisture, Ashes, and 5-(hydroxymethyl) furfural), as well as color and aw, were measured on 25 agave syrups, including traditional samples as controls. Traditional and semi-industrial syrups were samples obtained by thermal hydrolysis. Additionally, the semi-industrial process included control of process variables such as pH, °Bx, and temperature. The industrial process is technified. The agave syrups ranged from 70-76 °Bx, pH ranged from 3.2-6.7, and moisture from 20.2-28.6%. The aw values shown a wide variation as well as L* a* and b* color parameters. Some of those parameters shown significant differences in ANOVA analysis; however, most of the samples complied with the norm. General Discriminant Analysis (GDA) made it possible to discriminate between production process by using pH, % Ash, b*, 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural and a* parameters. Further analysis of a wide range of syrups and the inclusion of non-regulated compounds such as volatile compounds and carbohydrates are needed to get more information for a deeper characterization of agave syrups.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207