Investigation of the awareness and effects of naturally changing compositional aspects in kombucha tea, due to natural fermentation processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growing popularity of Kombucha, more people are beginning to either purchase or make their own Kombucha beverage. Due to the relatively recent rise in popularity, within the general public, not as much is known about the beverage compared to other beverages that have been on the market longer such as beer. This is important and relevant to public health because, due to the nature of the production method used to create Kombucha, the drink itself may contain alcohol. While at the time of production and distribution, the levels of alcohol are below the regulated maximum of 1%, these levels may increase on their own if measures were not put in place to stop the beverage from self-fermenting post-distribution. Kombucha is sold as a non-alcoholic beverage as they aren’t required to be defined as liquor (because it is <1% ethanol), when in reality, they may contain more than 1% ethanol due to the self-fermentation process. This poses as a potential health risks to people who do not consume alcohol for personal reasons or to adolescents who should not be consuming alcohol.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".