Product attributes affecting consumer preference for residential deck materials
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
In many countries, restrictions on the use of traditional preservative treatments have resulted in efforts to develop wood products for outdoor use that are durable, environmentally friendly, and appealing to consumers. In the present study, consumers’ preferences for wooden deck materials were investigated using sensory analysis. The analysis included an analytical sensory profiling of five deck materials, conducted by a trained sensory panel, as well as a hedonic preference study conducted on Norwegian customers. Eighteen visual and tactile attributes were identified, and statistical analysis indicated that these attributes were sufficient to discriminate between the different deck materials. The results imply that consumers prefer deck materials with a homogeneous visual appearance and moderate color intensity. The study demonstrated a successful application of sensory research on wood products and implies that sensory analysis is an appropriate tool to study relationships between hedonic judgments and product characteristics. The study was carried out on wooden deck materials, but the results are probably also relevant for other wood products.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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