MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994334369 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.9b05859

Development and Evaluation of a Vineyard-Based Strategy To Mitigate Smoke-Taint in Wine Grapes

2019· article· en· W2994334369 on OpenAlexafffund
James W. Favell, Matthew Noestheden, Sarah M. Lyons, Wesley F. Zandberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsVeraisonVineyardWineSmokeVineWine grapeRipeningFood scienceToxicologyChemistryHorticultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smoke-taint is a wine defect that may occur when ripening grape crops absorb volatile phenols (VPs), compounds associated with the negative sensory attributes of smoke-taint, due to exposure of grapes to wildfire smoke. This study examined potential methods to reduce the impact that smoke-exposure has on wine grapes. Specifically, agricultural sprays normally used to protect grapes from fungal pathogens and a spray used to prevent cracking in soft-fleshed fruits were assessed for their capacity to inhibit increases in VP concentrations in wine grapes following on-vine smoke-exposure. The results indicated that an artificial grape cuticle applied 1 week before exposure to simulated forest fire smoke (at 1-2 weeks after veraison) can significantly hinder an increase in VP concentrations in smoke-exposed grapes at commercial maturity. This reduction in VP concentrations may mitigate crop losses experienced globally by the wine industry due to exposure of grapes on-vine (at key phenological stages) to wildfire smoke.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207