A preliminary investigation into participants' reactions to a sensory trial investigating a cannabis edible
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For the food industry to successfully develop foods and beverages enriched with cannabis or cannabinoids, sensory analysis trials must be conducted. This study used open‐ended comments to evaluate a consumer acceptability trial of a cannabis edible. The participants ( n = 64) were presented with an outline of a proposed consumer acceptability trial evaluating a cannabis edible and then answered questions about the sensory trial. Results suggest that conventional methodology used in sensory analyses may need to be reframed when evaluating edible cannabis products. The use of take‐home sample kits needs to be considered, and consumer acceptability trials may want to include questions about the psychoactive effects induced after consumption. As more edible cannabis products are developed, they present a unique opportunity for researchers to explore other levels of sensory characterization of these novel food products. Practical applications Sensory analysis is a key component of the food product development process, and as such, it is essential to determine how sensory methods can be best utilized to evaluate edible cannabis products. This study investigated what participants thought about a proposed consumer acceptability trial being applied to an edible cannabis product. The participants identified that (a) they wished to evaluate the full product (not a sample), (b) thought they should have been asked about the psychoactive effects, (c) wished to try the product at home and lastly, (d) did not enjoy testing the products within sensory booths. As such, researchers within the food industry working on edible cannabis products should investigate the employment of home‐use tests and questions about psychoactive effects. More studies are needed to identify which sensory methods can be best applied to evaluate edible cannabis products.
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.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it