MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250404893 · doi:10.1080/20024091054166

Opalescent and Cloudy Fruit Juices: Formation and Particle Stability

2002· review· en· W4250404893 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Beveridge

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFruit juiceTanninFood scienceChemistryOrange juiceCentrifugationBerryEnvironmental scienceBotanyBiologyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Referee: Dr. Ronald Wrolstad, Department of Food Science and Technology, Wiegand Hall 100, Corvallis, Oregon 97331-6692 Cloudy fruit juices, particularly from tropical fruit, are becoming a fast-growing part of the fruit juice sector. The classification of cloud as coarse and fine clouds by centrifugation and composition of cloud from apple, pineapple, orange, guava, and lemon juice are described. Fine particulate is shown to be the true stable cloud and to contain considerable protein, carbohydrate, and lipid components. Often, tannin is present as well. The fine cloud probably arises from cell membranes and appears not to be simply cell debris. Factors relating to the stability of fruit juice cloud, including particle sizes, size distribution, and density, are described and discussed. Factors promoting stable cloud in juice are presented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.134 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207