Self-Rated Aversion to Taste Qualities and the PROP Taster Phenotype Associate with Alcoholic Beverage Intake and Preference
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
Consumers often identify “taste” as an important factor when selecting alcoholic beverages. Although it is assumed that reduced alcohol consumption in PROP super-tasters is due to a greater dislike of the nominally aversive sensations that they experience more intensely (e.g., bitterness) when compared to PROP non-tasters, this question has not been specifically asked to them. Therefore, we examined consumers’ self-reported aversion towards specific sensory attributes (bitter, hot/burn, dry, sour, sweet, carbonation) for four alcoholic beverage types (white wine, red wine, beer, spirits) using a convenience sample of U.S. wine consumers (n = 925). Participants rated 18 statements describing different combinations of sensory attributes and alcoholic beverages on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., Beer tastes too bitter for me). Individuals who tended to agree more strongly with the statements (i.e., they were more averse; p(F) < 0.05) tended to (i) consume less of all beverage types, (ii) consume a higher proportion of white wine (p(r) < 0.05), and (iii) were more likely to be female or PROP super-tasters. The results suggest that self-reported aversion to specific sensory attributes is associated with not only lower overall intake of alcoholic beverages, but also a shift in the relative proportions of beverage type consumed; a key finding for studies investigating how taste perception impacts alcohol consumption.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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