MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7052634477

A study of gushing in ciders, its mechanism and causative effects

2000· dissertation· en· W7052634477 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2000
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPectinFermentationBubbleMechanism (biology)DivalentDivalent metal
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent interest in the commercial production of bottle-fermented (sparkling) cider from Ontario-grown apples instigated this study. Preliminary investigations indicated that certain pre-fermentation treatments of apples could produce gushing ciders. Gushing is characterized by the overfoaming of the cider when the cap is removed from the bottle, and cannot be attributed to overcarbonation or mishandling. Decades of research on gushing in beer have not fully elucidated the cause(s) of gushing. Investigation of four methods of cider production identified the use of thawed apples as the only processing treatment which produced gushing ciders. Chemical analyses conducted over the course of primary and secondary fermentations permitted comparison of the three treatments against the control. Gushing ciders were particularly high in soluble pectin and low in phenolic substances. The concentrations of several divalent and trivalent metallic ions were also significantly different in gushing ciders. The mechanism of gushing was investigated in the second part of the research. Pressure release from the bottled ciders revealed that bubbles originated only in the sediment. A mathematical model and computer simulation programs were constructed to predict the growth and ascent of the bubbles. In non-gushing ciders, bubbles were produced at low frequencies and ascended through the liquid as single bubbles. In gushing ciders, bubbles were produced at high frequencies and ascended through the liquid as a cloud. Interaction of the bubbles within the cloud resulted in slower (hindrance) or faster velocities than predicted by the computer simulation program. The higher rate of bubble production in ciders resulted in the phenomenon of gushing. High densities of bubbles within the bubble clouds restricted the movement of liquid through the clouds. Constriction of the bottle at the bottle neck compressed the cloud of bubbles, further slowing or preventing liquid movement through the bubble cloud; liquid above the cloud was lifted by the continuing rise of the bubble cloud, resulting in gushing.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207