Sensory Evaluation Acceptability for a Food Supplementary Chickpea-Based Ready-to-Use among Moderately Malnourished Children Aged 6-59 Months
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The objective of this study was to assess sensory acceptability of locally-produced chickpea-based ready-to-use supplementary foods (RUSF) among moderately malnourished children (6-59 months). A quantitative descriptive analysis using a five point hedonic scale among a total of 140 mother-baby pairs was conducted in five hotspot priority one district. The target groups were sampled from 10 sites of five districts (two sites per district). The child-mother pairs per district were selected through systematic random sampling. The selection criteria included children aged 6-59 months with moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) and not suffering from any illness. Half of the respondents (46%) were farmers, while 29% were housewives; only 21% had formal education. Both sexes were equally represented in the sample size among children with 46% being males while 54% females. About half (46%) of households had four or more children with median maternal age during child birth reported at 28.6 5.9 years. About 89% of children consumed complementary food from starchy staple food; 17% consumed from vitamin A rich foods; 57% consumed from dark green leafy vegetables; no child consumed meat, fish and eggs; 49.3% consumed legumes, nuts and seeds; 36.4% consumed milk and milk products and the mean dietary diversity was rated at two out of the nine food groups. The amount of RUSF consumed by children from 48-59 months was higher than children who were 6-11 months. Amhara region had accepted chickpea only and chickpea + maize+ soy the two products more than the other four regions with an average mean value of 4.8 and 4.6 by mother/caregiver and interviewer, respectively. Mothers' perception of the appearance of the products and their overall acceptability was similar in most regions except South Nation Nationality People Region (SNNPR) where the rating of the two products was low with an average mean value of 4.6. Two of the products were well accepted by the study of the participants. The purchase for progress (P4P) programme could utilize this opportunity to support cooperative unions to make chickpeas available on the market given importance to.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».