Consumer acceptability and chemical composition of whole‐wheat breads incorporated with brown seaweed (<i>Ascophyllum nodosum</i>) or red seaweed (<i>Chondrus crispus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Seaweeds have been eaten in the diets of coastal cultures for centuries; however, consumption of seaweeds has been limited in Western diets owing to undesirable sensory characteristics and lack of familiarity. Apart from healthful bioactive metabolites, seaweeds are good sources of fibre and minerals. They are nearly a complete protein and have a low fat content (mainly mono- or polyunsaturated). The objectives were (i) to investigate if the addition of brown seaweed, Ascophyllum nodosum, or red seaweed, Chondrus crispus, altered the chemical composition and sensory properties of whole-wheat bread; and (ii) to determine what percentage the addition of brown or red seaweed to whole-wheat bread is acceptable to consumers. The two seaweeds were incorporated into separate batches of whole-wheat bread by percentage weight flour at 0% (control), 2%, 4%, 6%, and 8%. RESULTS: The products containing the highest amounts of A. nodosum and C. crispus had the highest ash and total dietary fibre. A. nodosum and C. crispus breads were acceptable at 4% and 2% levels respectively. The attributes of no aftertaste, soft, and chewy drove consumer liking of the whole-wheat bread, whereas attributes dry, dense, strong aftertaste, and saltiness detracted from liking. CONCLUSION: This project's significance is to demonstrate the acceptability of seaweed in a Western population, which may lay the groundwork to encourage and promote the consumption of seaweed or to exemplify seaweed incorporation into foodstuffs. © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".