Effect of passive oxygen exposure during pressing and handling on the chemical and sensory attributes of Chardonnay wine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims The significance of oxygen in winemaking has been well established, but knowledge gaps exist regarding the extent and impact passive oxygenation has on chemical and sensory properties during the initial stages. Methods and Results Using in-press oxygen monitors, controlling oxygen exposure during the earliest stages of grape processing was shown to be highly effective. This work demonstrated that pressing management has far more impact on wine composition than handling management; the earliest and highest exposure to oxygen has the most profound impact on the composition of the resulting wine compared to the lower levels of repeated exposure typical of normal handling procedures. Furthermore, control of oxygen exposure during post-pressing operations offers the possibility of modulating specific classes of compounds, described in sensory analysis as floral and confection. Conclusions Significant modulation of aromatic, phenolic and protein profiles of wine occurred through controlling oxygen exposure during the earliest stages of grape processing. Significance of the Study This work shows the possible stylistic potential and limitations of oxygen control, albeit with investment in press technology. The understanding of the relative influence of processing variables assessed in this work can be immediately applied by winemakers.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".