Sensory Evaluation Acceptability for a Food Supplementary Chickpea-Based Ready-to-Use among Moderately Malnourished Children Aged 6-59 Months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess sensory acceptability of locally-produced chickpea-based ready-to-use supplementary foods (RUSF) among moderately malnourished children (6-59 months).A quantitative descriptive analysis using a five point hedonic scale among a total of 140 mother-baby pairs was conducted in five hotspot priority one district.The target groups were sampled from 10 sites of five districts (two sites per district).The child-mother pairs per district were selected through systematic random sampling.The selection criteria included children aged 6-59 months with moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) and not suffering from any illness.Half of the respondents (46%) were farmers, while 29% were housewives; only 21% had formal education.Both sexes were equally represented in the sample size among children with 46% being males while 54% females.About half (46%) of households had four or more children with median maternal age during child birth reported at 28.6 ± 5.9 years.About 89% of children consumed complementary food from starchy staple food; 17% consumed from vitamin A rich foods; 57% consumed from dark green leafy vegetables; no child consumed meat, fish and eggs; 49.3% consumed legumes, nuts and seeds; 36.4% consumed milk and milk products and the mean dietary diversity was rated at two out of the nine food groups.The amount of RUSF consumed by children from 48-59 months was higher than children who were 6-11 months.Amhara region had accepted chickpea only and chickpea + maize+ soy the two products more than the other four regions with an average mean value of 4.8 and 4.6 by mother/caregiver and interviewer, respectively.Mothers' perception of the appearance of the products and their overall acceptability was similar in most regions except South Nation Nationality People Region (SNNPR) where the rating of the two products was low with an average mean value of 4.6.Two of the products were well accepted by the study of the participants.The purchase for progress (P4P) programme could utilize this opportunity to support cooperative unions to make chickpeas available on the market given importance to.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".