MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331424697 · doi:10.1111/1750-3841.13281

Assessment of Important Sensory Attributes of Millet Based Snacks and Biscuits

2016· article· en· W2331424697 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew B. McSweeney, Lisa M. Duizer, Koushik Seetharaman, D. Dan Ramdath

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAcadia UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Rural AffairsOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsAftertasteFood scienceTasteFlavorMathematicsHealth benefitsChemistryMedicineTraditional medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an increasing push by consumers for new food products that can provide health benefits. To develop these products, sometimes it is necessary to look to alternative crops, 1 of which is millet. For millet to be successfully adopted by consumers, it is necessary to identify and develop product types that are acceptable to North Americans. Biscuits and extruded snacks were produced using varying amounts of refined proso millet flour (0%, 25%, 75%, and 100%). Sensory analysis was conducted on 8 products (4 types of biscuits and 4 types of extruded snack) in 2 separate tests (1 for biscuits and 1 for snacks). Preferred Attribute Elicitation (PAE), a relatively new sensory method, was used to determine attributes affecting liking of the products. Results indicated that as the amount of millet in the biscuits and extruded snacks increased, the liking of the flavor, texture and overall liking decreased. Millet contributed to a bitter taste and bitter aftertaste, and resulted in gritty and dry food products. Further work is required to refine the products tested as well as to identify further products that can be added to the diet in order to take advantage of the health benefits that millet provides.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicSensory Analysis and Statistical MethodsFrench-language works237,207