MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160804602 · doi:10.3390/beverages7020024

The Use of Temporal Check-All-That-Apply and Category Scaling by Experienced Panellists to Evaluate Sweet and Dry Ciders

2021· article· en· W3160804602 on OpenAlexaff
Rachael Moss, Sophie Barker, Matthew B. McSweeney

Bibliographic record

VenueBeverages · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAftertasteFood scienceChemistryTaste

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cider is a growing market in North America, but more studies need to be completed to fully understand ciders’ sensory properties. The primary objective of this study was to identify the differences in the sensory properties of ciders described as “sweet” or “dry” using both static (category scales) and dynamic (temporal check-all-that-apply, TCATA) sensory methodologies. The secondary objective was to evaluate experienced panellists with a familiar methodology (category scales) and an unfamiliar methodology (TCATA). The sweet ciders were characterized by sweet, floral, cooked apple, and fresh apple attributes, and they had a sour aftertaste. The dry ciders were found to be bitter, sour, earthy, and mouldy, and they had a sour and bitter aftertaste. The experienced panellists produced reproducible results using both methodologies; however, they did not find small differences between the cider samples. Future research should investigate a wider range of cider and investigate ciders’ aftertaste. More studies need to be completed on experienced panellists and on when researchers and the food industry should use them.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBeveragesSame topicSensory Analysis and Statistical MethodsFrench-language works237,207