MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993234116 · doi:10.1080/03610470.2019.1678361

Modeling Yeast in Suspension during Laboratory and Commercial Fermentations to Detect Aberrant Fermentation Processes

2019· article· en· W2993234116 on OpenAlexaff
Arthur B. Rudolph, Andrew J. MacIntosh, R. Alex Speers, Colette M. St. Mary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSampling (signal processing)PopulationBiological systemMathematicsEngineeringBiochemical engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding yeast dynamics during fermentation is important for quality control, whether monitoring fermentation consistency or identifying aberrant events, such as premature yeast flocculation (PYF). Previous models of fermentation dynamics tend to be parameter rich and require large time series, which are rare in industry. This research investigates five simpler models to 1) describe fermentation dynamics, 2) refine quality control sampling regimes to improve model fit, and 3) identify PYF fermentations. The ability of these models to describe yeast dynamics was evaluated using model fitting with time series data and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) model selection. Data simulated from large time series was used with this model fitting approach to improve sampling schedules without increasing sampling effort. Lastly, PYF was identified in fermentations of fungal-contaminated malt using linear discriminant analysis (LDA). For large data sets, a four-parameter extension of the normal curve performed best while smaller data sets were better described by the 2-parameter gamma model. Moving sampling effort nearer the population peak improved model fits. Lastly, all models detected PYF, however the two-parameter gamma model provided a simple metric for distinguishing PYF. This research provides guidelines on appropriate model use, improving sampling regimes, and identifying PYF.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Brewing ChemistsSame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207