The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
THE USE OF LANGUAGE BY TRAINED AND UNTRAINED EXPERIENCED WINE TASTERS
Abstract
A comparison was made between a highly experienced and a highly experienced and formally trained group of wine tasters in their ability to effectively communicate about wine. The ability to match a wine to a description was used to assess the description's communicative value. Both groups matched three Chardonnay wines to peer generated descriptions. The untrained group also matched wines to consensus descriptions produced by experienced enologists. Both groups were able to match wines to descriptions well above that expected by chance with the performance of the trained group being better in this regard. The best matching performance was attained by the untrained group matching to the expert consensus descriptions. Descriptions correctly matched by the trained group contained a significantly higher number of concrete tactile and palate intensity terms while the use of terms describing the complex dimensions of wine by the untrained mitigated against information transfer. Untrained panelists used concrete terms as cues for identification, while trained panelists relied more on vague and abstract terms. The results also suggest that descriptions are interpreted by both trained and untrained experienced tasters in a synthetic rather than analytic fashion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
DELIZA, R., & MacFIE, H. J. H. (1996) · Journal of Sensory Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1745-459x.1996.tb00036.x · Cited by 763
Cited by
Ericsson, K. A. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200410001-00022 · Cited by 2,988
Ericsson, K. A. (2006) · The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816796.038 · Cited by 1,629
A ‘Mouth-feel Wheel’: terminology for communicating the mouth-feel characteristics of red wine
GAWEL, R., OBERHOLSTER, A., & FRANCIS, I. L. (2000) · Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research · doi:10.1111/j.1755-0238.2000.tb00180.x · Cited by 353
Self-citationThinking forensics: Cognitive science for forensic practitioners
Edmond, G., Towler, A., Growns, B., Ribeiro, G., Found, B., White, D., Ballantyne, K., Searston, R. A., Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M., et al. (2017) · Science & Justice · doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005 · Cited by 95
Giftedness Viewed from the Expert-Performance Perspective
Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2005) · Journal for the Education of the Gifted · doi:10.4219/jeg-2005-335 · Cited by 94
Metadata
- Authors
- GAWEL, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Sensory Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-12
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 267-284
- ISSN
- 0887-8250 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-459X
- OpenAlex
- W2069869849
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: THE USE OF LANGUAGE BY TRAINED AND UNTRAINED EXPERIENCED WINE TASTERS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1745-459x.1997.tb00067.x
- The paper
- GAWEL, R. (1997). THE USE OF LANGUAGE BY TRAINED AND UNTRAINED EXPERIENCED WINE TASTERS. Journal of Sensory Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459x.1997.tb00067.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.