Development and Acquisition of Flavor and Food Preferences in Children: An Update Until 2010
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The purpose of the present research is to identify the experience-related mechanisms which induce the establishment of children’s flavor, food and drink acceptance and preferences. The development of children’s preferences for flavors, foods and drinks is mediated by a variety of mechanisms, such as flavor transmission via amniotic fluid (AF) and neonatal feeding regimen (breastfeeding and formula milk-based feeding), mere repeated exposure, conditioned preferences for or aversions to gustatory stimuli based on subsequent postingestive consequences, parental strategies and food management of school meals. Operation of specific mechanisms is age-dependent, but they may have interacting effects. An essential feature of these mechanisms is exposure to flavors and foods, which requires prior selection of foods by adults and thereby guarantees cultural transmission of gastronomic habits. Promoting healthy patterns of food consumption by children, such as diets rich in vegetables, requires careful manipulation of these experience-related mechanisms. Flavor, food and drink preferences developed by young and older children appear to remain stable in later life stages, probably due to gustatory imprintings originated during prenatal gestation and childhood. However, the specific age ranges during which such gustatory imprinting may occur, remain, in most cases, unknown. In addition to this, there is a need for further research on specific aspects of the above-mentioned mechanisms to elucidate the development of food preferences in children. For example, the impact of breastfeeding history on later food and/or flavor preferences beyond infancy should be ascertained.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it