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 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

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.263
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