MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098957389

lAMES A GIBS01\\T LIBRARY

2009· article· en· W7098957389 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPhytochemistry and Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVineyardVineAromaWineWater contentVitis viniferaDitchYield (engineering)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The influence of vine water status was studied in commercial vineyard blocks of Vilis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Franc in Niagara Peninsula, Ontario from 2005 to 2007. Vine performance, fruit composition and vine size of non-irrigated grapevines were compared within ten vineyard blocks containing different soil and vine water status. Results showed that within each vineyard block water status zones could be identified on GIS-generated maps using leaf water potential and soil moisture measurements. Some yield and fruit composition variables correlated with the intensity of vine water status. Chemical and descriptive sensory analysis was performed on nine (2005) and eight (2006) pairs of experimental wines to illustrate differences between wines made from high and low water status winegrapes at each vineyard block. Twelve trained judges evaluated six aroma and flavor (red fruit, black cherry, black current, black pepper, bell pepper, and green bean), thr~e mouthfeel (astringency, bitterness and acidity) sensory attributes as well as color intensity. Each pair of high and low water status wine was compared using t-test. In 2005, low water status (L WS) wines from Buis, Harbour Estate, Henry of Pelham (HOP), and Vieni had higher color intensity; those form Chateau des

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhytochemistry and Bioactive CompoundsFrench-language works237,207