MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prediction of Maple Syrup Quality from Maple Sap with a Plasmonic Tongue and Ordinal Mixed-Effects Modeling

2023· article· en· W4328121515 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Forest, Julien Coutu, Juan Manuel Montiel-León, Issraa Beniani, Zhe Yu, Morgan Craig, Jean‐François Masson

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Food Science & Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPlant-Derived Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalRegroupement Québécois sur les Matériaux de Pointe
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMapleSugarElectronic tongueFood scienceChemistryBrixMathematicsBotanyBiologyTaste

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A gold nanoparticle (Au NP)-based plasmonic tongue is shown to correlate well with the emergence of flavor defects in the late season harvest of maple syrup, validated with a representative sampling of 29 304 maple syrups of different grades. The daily average temperatures, pH, transmittance, °Brix, and total and individual amino acid concentrations provided evidence that the plasmonic tongue responds to amino acid concentrations, which is then correlated to an off-flavor index. The amino acid to sugar ratio decreased significantly in syrup compared to sap, a result of their consumption in the Maillard reaction during the boiling process. An ordinal mixed-effect model was shown to accurately predict the amino acid concentrations and the most likely grading class of maple syrup from the plasmonic tongue’s response. Taken together, the plasmonic tongue with the mathematical model could serve as a predictor of the output quality of maple syrup from maple sap at the production site.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Food Science & TechnologySame topicPlant-Derived Bioactive CompoundsFrench-language works237,207