MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114129214 · doi:10.1080/87559129.2020.1860084

A Review of Sensory and Consumer-related Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Red Meats from Alternative Animal Species

2020· review· en· W3114129214 on OpenAlexaff
Ibironke O. Popoola, Philip O. Soladoye, Nicole J. Gaudette, Wendy V. Wismer

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Reviews International · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsAlberta Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryGovernment of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)BusinessSensory systemProduction (economics)Consumer demandMarketingEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Production of alternative red meats such as bison, elk, horse and kangaroo, offer both economic opportunities and nutritional benefits but is still a niche market due to both demand and supply limitations. The review was aimed at providing a comprehensive summary of sensory and consumer-related factors influencing consumption of these meats. Flavor is the key sensory attribute distinguishing these meats from conventional red meat and driving acceptance. Undesirable sensory attributes, lack of culinary knowledge, high price, seasonal availability, and safety concerns were major deterrents to consumption. Consumption was influenced by socio-demographic factors of gender, age, income, and education level.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Reviews InternationalSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207