Sensory and Hedonic Evaluation in Response to Food-Cue Exposure: The Case of Juicing Demonstration of Fresh Oranges
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
This study evaluated whether observing the orange squeezing (juicing) process can influence consumers’ sensory evaluations and hedonics of different forms of orange juice. The juicing process delivers cognitive (freshness) and physical (olfactory/visual) food cues. Three forms of orange juice were used in the experiment: fresh squeezed, not-from-concentrate, and from-concentrate. Participants were divided into two groups, with only one group observing the juicing process using a specially designed table-top juicer. Sensory evaluations of participants who did not observe the juicing process were not significantly different with the exception of color. The demonstration of the juicing process primed consumers to identify and evaluate fresh squeezed orange juice in terms of color, aroma, flavor, sweetness, and acidity. The results of an ordered logistic model indicated that consumer acceptance of orange juice was significantly linked to internal attributes such as flavor, sweetness, acidity, and pulp, and the acceptances were not significantly different by juice forms. This implied that food cues from the juicing process can affect human sensory evaluation of the cued food, but the food cues may not overwhelm, in particular when attributes of alternatives are almost homogeneous.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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