MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297982584 · doi:10.1111/jtxs.12726

Impacts of malt protein removal on yeast fermentation efficiency

2022· article· en· W4297982584 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nan Xu, Fuhao Ma, Hua Yin, Wenwen Yu, Cui Zhang, Shengnan Zhan, Tao Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Texture Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnzyme Production and Characterization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersZhejiang University
KeywordsMaltotrioseMaltoseChemistryMashingFood scienceChromatographyBrewingFermentationAmylaseHigh-performance liquid chromatographyEnzymeBiochemistrySucrose

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of malt protein removal by Neutrase using Canadian and French commercial malts (Malt 1 and Malt 2) on mashing efficiency, and production of violate compounds during fermentation were determined using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), headspace-solid-phase microextraction coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis (HS-SMPE-GC-MS). HPLC results showed that for Malt 1 containing lower free- and total-β-amylase but higher α-amylase enzyme activity, Neutrase significantly increased the content of maltose, glucose and maltotriose, whereas for Malt 2, only glucose content increased. For Malt 1, the increased glucose/maltose ratio after Neutrase addition led to higher ethanol concentration than that with no Neutrase (4.06% vs. 2.09%), whereas for Malt 2, no significant differences were observed (2.92% vs. 3.09%). HS-SPME-GC-MS showed that for Malt 1 and Malt 2, Neutrase not influenced the violate compounds composition, whereas reduced their contents. This suggests that malt protein removal by Neutrase impairs the production of volatile compounds.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Texture StudiesSame topicEnzyme Production and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207