Sensory properties of thickened tomato soup enhanced with different sources of protein (whey, soy, hemp, and pea)
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
Thickened soup formulations were created with different proteins (hemp, soy, pea, and whey) to improve protein and fluid intake. The formulations consisted of a control soup, and soups with 6% whey protein, 6% hemp protein, 6% pea protein, and 6% soy protein by volume. The suitability of the samples for those living with dysphagia was evaluated using the international dysphagia diet standardization initiative (IDDSI) spoon tilt test and a sensory trial (51 older adults and 51 younger adults). The sensory trial used nine-point hedonic scales and check-all-that-apply to evaluate the different formulations. The sample with the whey addition was not significantly different than the control in terms of liking of flavor and texture, but it decreased the participants' overall liking. The hemp, pea, and soy decreased overall liking as well as liking of flavor and texture. They were associated with off-flavors, aftertaste, and astringency. The responses from the older and younger adults were compared and significant differences were found in their liking of the texture, with the older adults finding the formulations' texture significantly more acceptable. Overall, the study identified that hemp, pea, and soy did not create acceptable thickened soup formulations and the hemp and pea formulations did not achieve a consistency level that is acceptable for those living with dysphagia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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