Consumer Acceptability and Descriptive Characterization of Fresh and Dried King Oyster (Pleurotus eryngii) and Hedgehog (Hydnum repandum) Mushrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>King oyster <em>(Pleurotus eryngii)</em> and hedgehog (<em>Hydnum repandum)</em> mushrooms have great commercial interest due to their nutraceutical and nutritional properties, besides being new products on the market. The aim of this study was to evaluate the acceptability and characterize descriptively fresh and dried <em>Pleurotus eryngii</em> and <em>Hydnum repandum</em> mushrooms. Raw mushrooms were analyzed by descriptive tests and cooked mushrooms were analyzed by hedonic, discriminative and descriptive tests. Descriptive analysis was performed by QDA<sup>TM</sup> method with a semi-trained panel. Acceptability as a guide to consumer trends was assessed as hedonic tests with 20 untrained judges to evaluate appearance, aroma, texture, flavor, and purchase decision. To evaluate the influence of the drying process in sensory characteristics, mushroom risottos were compared by discriminative analysis. Raw fresh hedgehog mushroom<em> </em>was mainly characterized by the presence of teeth, cap waviness and intensity of aroma. Raw dried <em>H. repandum</em> was mainly depicted by the presence of teeth and wrinkles, crunchiness and hardness. Well-defined gills and velvet touch characterized raw fresh <em>P. eryngii</em>. Dried <em>P. eryngii</em> mushroom was crunchy and had different colors of cap and stem. All cooked mushrooms presented average hardness and were slightly umami, watery, chewy and had some umami aftertaste. Cooked <em>Hydnum repandum</em> presented high intensity of aroma and bitter aftertaste. Fresh and dried <em>Pleurotus eryngii</em> were well accepted, as well as fresh <em>H. repandum</em>. Dried <em>H. repandum</em> had low acceptability scores, being thus not recommended to be consumed sautéed, but in sauces or risottos.</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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".