MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797884460 · doi:10.1002/jib.478

The impact of barley nitrogen fertilization rate on barley brewing using a commercial enzyme (Ondea Pro)

2018· article· en· W2797884460 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adel M. Yousif, D. Evan Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Institute of Brewing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGrains Research and Development Corporation
KeywordsBrewingMashingNitrogenFood scienceHordeum vulgareChemistryAgronomyFree amino nitrogenHuman fertilizationNitrogen fertilizerBiologyPoaceaeFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two Australian (Buloke and Commander) and two Canadian (CDC Meredith and Bentley) barley varieties were grown under four levels of nitrogen fertilization (0, 20, 40 and 80 kg ha−1). Barley samples were assessed by barley brewing with the Ondea Pro enzyme cocktail for mashing analysis and were compared with typical malt brewing quality specifications. The study observed that increased nitrogen fertilization resulted in increased barley kernel nitrogen content which significantly impacted a range of wort quality parameters including increased soluble nitrogen, free amino nitrogen and barley beta-amylase level, but also reduced extract, barley Kolbach index, β-glucan and colour. Increased grain nitrogen had relatively little effect on apparent attenuation limit, lautering and barley limit dextrinase level. Knowledge of the effects of interactions between barley of different qualities (e.g. nitrogen content) and the Ondea Pro enzymes on wort quality will result in enhanced barley to directly and efficiently brew good quality beer, to better satisfy the quality expectations of brewers. Copyright © 2018 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Institute of BrewingSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207