MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588993930 · doi:10.2527/2005.83122863x

Consumer sensory acceptance and value of domestic, Canadian, and Australian grass-fed beef steaks1

2005· article· en· W1588993930 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTendernessFlavorMarbled meatPalatabilityTasteAnimal scienceMathematicsFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine US consumer acceptance and value of beef from various countries, 24 taste panels of consumers (n = 273 consumers) were conducted in Denver and Chicago. Two pairs of strip steaks were evaluated for flavor, juiciness, tenderness, and overall acceptability on eight-point hedonic scales. One pair consisted of an Australian grass-fed strip steak and a domestic strip steak, whereas the other pair included Canadian and domestic strip steaks. The pairs were matched to similar Warner-Bratzler shear values and marbling scores to decrease variation associated with tenderness and juiciness. A variation of the Vickery auction was used to obtain silent, sealed bids on steaks (0.45 kg) from the same strip loins sampled in the taste panel. Consumers gave higher (P < 0.001) scores for flavor, juiciness, tenderness, and overall acceptability for domestic steaks compared with Australian grass-fed steaks. Domestic steaks averaged 3.68/0.45 dollars kg, whereas consumers placed an average value of 2.48/0.45 dollars kg on Australian grass-fed steaks (P < 0.001). Consumers rated Canadian steaks numerically lower for juiciness (P = 0.09) and lower (P < 0.005) for flavor, tenderness, and overall acceptability than domestic samples. Consumers placed an average value of 3.95/0.45 dollars kg for domestic steaks and 3.57/0.45 dollars kg for Canadian steaks (P < 0.01). Consumers (19.0%) who preferred Australian grass-fed steaks over domestic steaks paid 1.38/0.45 dollars kg more (P < 0.001), whereas consumers (29.3%) who favored the Canadian steaks over the domestic steaks paid 1.37/0.45 dollars kg more (P < 0.001) for the Canadian steaks. A majority of US consumers seem to be accustomed to the taste of domestic beef and prefer domestic steaks to beef from Australia grass-fed and Canadian beef.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.244 · 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