Open Access
Issue
Ciência Téc. Vitiv.
Volume 29, Number 2, 2014
Page(s) 53 - 59
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/ctv/20142902053
Published online 26 January 2015
  • Alvelos H., Cabral J.A., Amaral B., Barros P., 2000. Statistical Methods for Controlling Wine Tasting Panels. Ciência Téc. Vitiv., 15, 15–26.
  • Bi J., 2003. Agreement and reliability assessments for performance of sensory descriptive panel. J. Sens. Stud., 18, 61–76. [CrossRef]
  • Brien C.J., May P., Mayo O., 1987. Analysis of judge performance in wine quality evaluations. J. Food Sci., 52, 1273–1279. [CrossRef]
  • Cabrera E., Gonzalez J., Montenegro E., 2010. Test informatizados y el registro del tiempo de respuesta, una vía para la precisión en la determinación del nivel de logro de un saber matemático. Estud. Pedagóg., 36, 69–84.
  • Cardinal M., Cornet J., Qannari A., Qannari M., 1994. Performances d’um Groupe d’Évaluation Sensorielle: Exemples de Traitements Statistiques des Données. Sci. Aliments, 14, 251–263.
  • Etaio I., Albisu M., Ojeda M., Gil P.F., Salmerón J., Pérez Elortondo F.J.. 2010, Sensory quality control for food certification: a case study on wine. Food Control, 21, 533–542. [CrossRef]
  • Gawel R., Godden P., 2008. Evaluation of the consistency of wine quality assessments from expert wine tasters. Australian J. Grape and Wine Res., 14, 1–8. [CrossRef]
  • Gawel R., Oberholster A., Francis I.L., 2000. A ‘Mouth-feel Wheel’: terminology for communicating the mouth-feel characteristics of red wine. Australian J. Grape Wine Res., 6, 203–207. [CrossRef]
  • Gladstones J.S., 2011. Wine, terroir and climate change. Wakefield Press, Kent Town.
  • Jackson R.S.. 2009. Wine tasting: a professional handbook. Academic Press.
  • King M.C., Hall J., Cliff M.A., 2001. A comparison of methods for evaluating the performance of a trained sensory panel. J. Sens. Stud., 16, 567–581. [CrossRef]
  • Latreille J., Mauger E., Ambroisine L., Tenenhaus M., Vincent M., Navarro S., Guinot C., 2006. Measurement of the reliability of sensory panel performances. Food Qual. and Preference, 17, 369–375. [CrossRef]
  • Lawless H., Liu Y.-F., 1997. Evaluation of wine quality using a small-panel hedonic scaling method. J. Sens. Stud., 12, 317–332. [CrossRef]
  • Lima L.B., Belchior A.P., Estabrook G.F., 1988. Uniformity and constancy of wine tasters evaluating the same wine on two different occasions. Ciência Téc. Vitiv., 7, 73–85.
  • Manfroi V., Costa G.P., Guerra C.C., Zanus M.C., Fialho F.B., Rombaldi C.V., 2010. Aplicação de taninos enológicos na elaboração de vinho Cabernet Sauvignon e seus efeitos sobre a qualidade sensorial. Ciência Rural, 40, 175–181. [CrossRef]
  • Montenegro E., González J., Cabrera E., 2010. Graphs r-polar Spherical Realization. Proyecciones (Antofagasta), 29, 31–39. [CrossRef]
  • Muroz A.M., Civille G.V., Carr B.T., 1992. Sensory Evaluation in Quality Control. Chapman & Hall, New York.
  • Noble A.C., Arnold R.A., Buechsenstein J., Leach E.J., Schmidt J.O., Stern P.M., 1987. Modification of a standardized system of wine aroma terminology. Am J. Enol. Vitic., 38, 143–146.
  • OIV. Norma OIV de los Concursos Internacionales de Vinos y Bebidas Espirituosas de Origen Vitivinícola. Resolución OIV/CONCOURS 332A/2009. Retrieved from: http://www.oiv.int/oiv/info/esconcours. [Accessed in 15th September 2011].
  • Rizzon L.A., Miele A., Menuguzzo J., Zanuz M.C., 1999. Efeito de três processos de vinificação sobre a composição química e a qualidade do vinho cabernet franc. Pesq. agropec. bras., 34, 1285–1293. [CrossRef]
  • Schervish M., 1995. Theory of Statistics. Springer, New York. [CrossRef]
  • Shao J., 2003. Mathematical Statistics, Second Edition. Springer, New York. [CrossRef]
  • Sinesio F., Risvik E., Rodbotten M., 1990. Evaluation of Panelist Performance in Descriptive Profiling of Rancid Sausages: a Multivariate Study. J. Sensory Studies, 5, 33–52. [CrossRef]
  • Vannier A., Brun O.X., Feinberg M.H., 1999. Application of sensory analysis to Champagne wine characterization and discrimination. Food Qual. and Preference, 10, 101–107. [CrossRef]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.