MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1532823949 · doi:10.1002/047167849x.bio032

Flavor and Sensory Aspects

2005· other· en· W1532823949 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBailey's Industrial Oil and Fat Products · 2005
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsCanadian International Grains Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensory systemReplicateQuality (philosophy)OdorComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)FlavorTasteSensory analysisMeasure (data warehouse)Food scienceMathematicsPsychologyData miningCognitive psychologyChemistryStatisticsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sensory evaluation is a scientific discipline that uses humans to measure the acceptability and sensory properties of food and other materials. Sensory properties important in food products include attributes of appearance, odor, taste, and texture. The use of humans as measuring devices is necessary because only humans can define what is “acceptable,” and in many cases, no instrumental or chemical method can adequately measure or replicate the human response. For this reason, sensory evaluation is a vital component in any quality assessment program. In such programs, sensory evaluation can be used to monitor product quality; determine effects of alternative processing, ingredients, or formulations; evaluate packaging; and determine product shelf life.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.189 · 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