Sensory Evaluation as a Tool in Determining Acceptability of Innovative Products Developed by Undergraduate Students in Food Science and Technology at The University of Trinidad and Tobago
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 paper discusses the comprehensive and practical training that was delivered to students in a university classroomon how sensory evaluation can be used to determine acceptability of food products. The report presents how studentsused their training on sensory evaluation methods and analysis and applied it to improving and predicting acceptabilityof new innovative products that they developed. Students were exposed to and trained on performing some of the majorsensory test methods, including discrimination, descriptive, and affective tests. They were also exposed to exerciseswhich involved them physically setting up a test area, presenting samples that were coded and properly displayed,collating data from sensory evaluation questionnaires, statistical analysis of data collated and the use of the results ofthe analysis to make decisions on product acceptability and improvement. Students successfully applied their trainingand were able to not only get feedback on the specific food characteristics of their products that could be improved butwere also able to conclude that the products they presented to the panelists were acceptable and that the panelists had ahighly positive attitude towards eating the products and even purchasing if these were to become available in themarket. Since appropriate statistical analysis was applied for the different sensory evaluation methods used for each ofthe different products, valid information and conclusions that can prove product quality and acceptability was gatheredand can be presented to any product development and marketing departments in any food and beverage company thatmay wish to adopt and produce these 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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