MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283315714 · doi:10.1002/ppp3.10284

Cider and dessert apples: What is the difference?

2022· article· en· W4283315714 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tayab Soomro, Sophie Watts, Zoë Migicovsky, Sean Myles

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants People Planet · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Societal Impact Statement Apples are among the most widely consumed fruits in the world, with a third of all apples being pressed into apple juice or fermented into cider. Cider has grown in popularity in Canada and the United States, and North American cider makers are increasingly interested in using traditional European ‘cider apples’ rather than using commonly grown ‘dessert apples’ that are grown primarily for fresh consumption. While we find that commonly grown dessert apples do differ from European cider apples for a small number of cider making characteristics, our results show that dessert apples are most often indistinguishable from cider apples across 10 traits. Our work provides a first step towards quantifying the differences between these two apple types.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.200
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlants People PlanetSame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207