A study of gushing in ciders, its mechanism and causative effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".