The Effect of Apple Juice Concentration on Cider Fermentation and Properties of the Final Product
Bibliographic record
Abstract
European legislation overall agrees that apple juice concentrate is allowed to be used to some extent in cider production. However, no comprehensive research is available to date on the differences in suitability for fermentation between fresh apple juice and that of reconstituted apple juice concentrate. This study aimed to apply freshly pressed juice and juice concentrate made from the same apple cultivar as a substrate for cider fermentation. Differences in yeast performance in terms of fermentation kinetics and consumption of nutrients have been assessed. Fermented ciders were compared according to volatile ester composition and off-flavor formation related to hydrogen sulfide. Based on the results, in the samples fermented with the concentrate, the yeasts consumed less fructose. The formation of long-chain fatty acid esters increased with the use of reconstituted juice concentrate while the differences in off-flavor formation could not be determined. Overall, the use of the concentrate can be considered efficient enough for the purpose of cider fermentation. However, some nutritional supplementation might be required to support the vitality of yeast.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".