MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045729446 · doi:10.3390/fermentation6030077

The Effect of Non-Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces Non-Cerevisiae Yeasts on Ethanol and Glycerol Levels in Wine

2020· article· en· W3045729446 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFermentation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWineSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSaccharomycesGlycerolFood scienceFermentationYeastEthanolWinemakingEthanol fermentationEthanol fuelBiotechnologyChemistryBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces non-cerevisiae studies have increased in recent years due to an interest in uninoculated fermentations, consumer preferences, wine technology, and the effect of climate change on the chemical composition of grapes, juice, and wine. The use of these yeasts to reduce alcohol levels in wines has garnered the attention of researchers and winemakers alike. This review critically analyses recent studies concerning the impact of non-Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces non-cerevisiae on two important parameters in wine: ethanol and glycerol. The influence they have in sequential, co-fermentations, and solo fermentations on ethanol and glycerol content is examined. This review highlights the need for further studies concerning inoculum rates, aeration techniques (amount and flow rate), and the length of time before Saccharomyces cerevisiae sequential inoculation occurs. Challenges include the application of such sequential inoculations in commercial wineries during harvest time.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.232 · 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