Effect of quinoa, chia and millet addition on consumer acceptability of gluten‐free bread
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
Summary There is an increasing demand for gluten‐free foods; however, standard gluten‐free foods are deficient in nutrients. This study investigated the use of alternative grains (chia, millet and quinoa) in gluten‐free breads to evaluate their sensory properties (fresh and following a partial bake method). A sensory trial ( n = 98) asked participants to consider six fresh bread samples made from chia, millet and quinoa, using 9‐point hedonic scales and check‐all‐that‐apply. A second sensory trial ( n = 89) was then completed using par‐baked bread samples of the different formulations. The sensory properties and the acceptability of the bread were significantly affected by the chia and quinoa flour. The millet flour did not change the acceptability of the bread. Furthermore, the partial baking method (after 90 days of frozen storage) did not significantly affect the acceptability of the breads made with chia, millet and quinoa, but it did affect the acceptability of the control bread prepared with brown rice flour. Overall, millet flour could be incorporated into gluten‐free breads made following a partial baking method without affecting consumer acceptability. Future studies should use a trained panel to evaluate how the breads differ based on the partial baking method.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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