A comparison of sensory properties of artisanal style and industrially processed gluten free breads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The consumption of gluten free foods is increasing in today’s society and consumers are demanding more from their gluten free products. Consumers are also looking for local alternatives to conventionally produced foods. This study compares the sensory aspects of industrially processed gluten free bread and locally produced, artisanal gluten free bread. Three breads were purchased from grocery stores and three from local bakeries. Global Napping ® and ultra flash profiling were used to identify the overall differences between the two different categories of gluten free breads. Partial Napping ® and ultra flash profiling were also used to determine if there were any differences between flavor and texture of the breads. Twelve panelists, who regularly consume bread, evaluated all six of the bread samples. Both methods indicated that there are many differences between the industrially processed and artisanal gluten free breads. The main differences being artisanal breads were associated with a wide array of flavors and a dry texture, while the industrially processed breads were found to be bland in flavor and moist. Overall, the artisanal gluten free breads were associated with more negative characteristics than that of industrially processed breads.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".