Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This study measured the survival of <em>Lactobacillus rhamnosus </em>GR-1 in non-dairy probiotic beverages over a 28-day storage period and to determine which sample was most preferred on measures of appearance, consistency, flavour, texture, and overall acceptability. Three non-dairy samples and one control milk sample were prepared. The non-dairy samples were soy (1:3 product-to-water ratio), almond (1:3), and peanut (1:5). <em>L. rhamnosus</em> GR-1 remained viable (10<sup>7</sup> CFU/ml) in all samples over 28 days storage period and changes over time were dependent on the sample (P=0.03). The results of the sensory evaluation (n=90) showed that the soy and peanut samples were significantly different (P&lt;0.03) from the control milk sample in appearance, consistency, flavour, texture, and overall acceptability. The almond sample was not rated significantly different (P&gt;0.05) from the milk control in all categories. The results of this study suggest that probiotic almond milk may be a feasible substitute for conventional probiotic milk beverages, particularly for vegetarians who cannot consume dairy products and individuals with lactose intolerance.</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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".