MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624099831 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v6n4p40

Consumer Sensory Acceptance of Standard Pre-cooked Hamburger Patties versus Premium Patties

2017· article· en· W2624099831 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter L. Bordi, Hyojin Chloe Cho, Jessica Marie MacMartin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeasoningFood scienceFlavorTasteBusinessMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumers’ increasing concerns toward nutrition, health, and sustainable food have influence food industry. Practitioners in the meat product industry and retailers are focusing on premium labeled meat products, such as Certified Angus Beef and grass-fed beef, to meet consumers’ demand. Although many consumers assume the premium has better taste and texture, there is little research comparing the sensory attributes of the premium and non-premium burgers. This study compared the sensory attributes of three different hamburger patties: flame broiled pre-cooked beef (non-premium, standard patties), Angus beef, and grass-fed beef patties (premium patties). The results show that participants prefer pre-cooked hamburger patties significantly than Angus and grass-fed patties in initial taste and flavor. Also, this pre-cooked hamburger patties are significantly preferred compared to grass-fed patties in overall quality and overall liking attributes. Other sensory attributes, such as appearance, texture, juiciness, and seasoning, show no significant difference among three different patties. This indicates that the pre-cooked hamburger patties can be preferred than (or compatible to) Angus or grass-fed patties.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.137 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207