MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389237511 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.16855

The effect of allyl isothiocyanate addition on consumers' saltiness perception

2023· article· en· W4389237511 on OpenAlexafffund
Jamal Amyoony, Mackenzie Gorman, Tanvi Dabas, Rachael Moss, Matthew B. McSweeney

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAllyl isothiocyanateSweetnessFlavourPerceptionFood scienceSensory analysisChemistryPsychologyTasteMathematicsOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Allyl isothiocyanate (AITC), a chemical irritant, through cross‐modal interactions, may impact the human perception of tastes and odours. Currently, new strategies are being explored to reduce the salt content present in foods, without impacting their sensory appeal. AITC may be able to increase the saltiness perception of salt‐reduced foods. As such, the objective was to first determine the detection threshold of AITC, and then evaluate its cross‐modal interaction with saltiness in model solutions and soup. The study included ninty participants. The basic tastes and burning sensation of model solutions were evaluated using general labelled magnitude scales. The soups were evaluated using hedonic and intensity scales, as well as temporal check‐all‐that‐apply (TCATA). The group mean of the individual threshold was 0.123 mg/100 mL. The AITC increased the saltiness perception of the model solutions but also suppressed the sweetness. The AITC also increased the saltiness perception of the soup during both the static and dynamic evaluation, but it also added other flavours to the soup including metallic, bitter and sour. The AITC decreased the overall liking and liking of the soup's flavour.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207