MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080592968 · doi:10.4236/fns.2011.25061

Evaluation of Sensory Properties of Probiotic Yogurt Containing Food Products with Prebiotic Fibresin Mwanza, Tanzania

2011· article· en· W2080592968 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie L. Irvine, Sharareh Hekmat

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Nutrition Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrebioticProbioticFood scienceLactobacillus rhamnosusFunctional foodInulinLactobacillusTanzaniaHealth benefitsBiotechnologyBiologyChemistryTraditional medicineMedicineFermentationBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yogurt becomes a functional food upon incorporating probiotics-live microorganisms which when adequately administered confer health benefits. Prebiotics are fermentable fibres that nourish beneficial gastrointestinal microflora enhance the functionality of probiotics. This research aimed to improve the acceptability and functionality of probiotic yogurt produced in Mwanza, Tanzania by incorporating probiotic food ingredients. The probiotic culture Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 and standard yogurt cultures Lactobacillus delbrueckii bulgaricus and Steptococcus thermophilus were used to manufacture yogurt, then locally available prebiotic food ingredients containing fructooligosaccha- ride/inulin were incorporated. A nine-point facial hedonic scale was used to evaluate five yogurt samples. A mean score between one and three indicated that the sample product was well accepted. Probiotic yogurt containing onions, garlic and sweet potato received a score of 1.6 ± 0.84 (p 0.90), and plantains, 5.3 ± 2.56 (p > 0.90) were not well accepted. Sweet, mildly flavored prebiotic ingredients were most successfully incorpo- rated into probiotic yogurt in Mwanza.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.103 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood and Nutrition SciencesSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207