Consumer Perception and Acceptability of Plant-Based Alternatives to Chicken
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of plant-based alternatives (PBAs) to meat in the marketplace has been increasing in recent years due to consumer demand. One of these plant-based products has aimed to mimic chicken products, specifically chicken nuggets. However, few sensory studies have been conducted on these products. The objective of this study is to evaluate the sensory properties, acceptability, and consumer perception of these PBAs. Participants (n = 105) were asked to evaluate five PBAs and a control (chicken nugget) using hedonic scales and a check-all-that-apply question. They also answered an open-ended comment question about PBAs. The participants separated the control from the PBAs in terms of their hedonic scores and sensory properties. They separated the PBAs based on their textural properties and if they had off-flavors. Participants disliked PBAs that were associated with an aftertaste, as well as beany, fibrous, and chewy attributes. The participants believed the PBAs currently on the market did not successfully mimic a chicken nugget and that improvement is needed, but they did believe PBAs are environmentally friendly.
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 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) | 0.012 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".