Beer and Consumer Response Using Biometrics: Associations Assessment of Beer Compounds and Elicited Emotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some chemical compounds, especially alcohol, sugars, and alkaloids such as hordenine, have been reported as elicitors of different emotional responses. This preliminary study was based on six commercial beers selected according to their fermentation type, with two beers of each type (spontaneous, bottom, and top). Chemometry and sensory analysis were performed for all samples to determine relationships and patterns between chemical composition and emotional responses from consumers. The results showed that sweeter samples were associated with higher perceived liking by consumers and positive emotions, which corresponded to spontaneous fermentation beers. There was high correlation (R = 0.91; R2 = 0.83) between hordenine and alcohol content. Beers presenting higher concentrations of both, and higher bitterness, were related to negative emotions. Further studies should be conducted, giving more time for emotional response analysis between beer samples, and comparing alcoholic and non-alcoholic beers with similar styles, to separate the effects of alcohol and hordenine. This preliminary study was a first attempt to associate beer compounds with the emotional responses of consumers using non-invasive biometrics.
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".