Sensory Analysis of Butterfly Pea (Clitoria ternatea L.) Flower Tea Drink Using Central Composite Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Butterfly pea (Clitoria ternatea L.) flower tea is a functional drink that is helpful in improving nutrition and health.The level of preference for the tea drink needs to be studied; thus, the accurate product formula can be obtained in its postharvest handling and processing.This research aimed to optimize the microwave-dried pea flower tea drink using the central composite design (CCD) method.The treatment factors studied were microwave power and drying time, with the treatment response as a sensory test of butterfly pea flower tea, including colour, aroma, taste, and aftertaste.The results of CCD analysis show that microwave power and drying time significantly affect the colour, aroma, and taste of butterfly pea tea but have no significant effect on the aftertaste.The optimum sensory formula was obtained at microwave power (X₁) of 180 watts and drying time (X₂) of 17 minutes, with a prediction of colour of 5.8 ≈ 6 (likes), aroma of 5.1 ≈ 5 (somewhat like), taste of 5 .03≈ 5 (somewhat like) and aftertaste of 4.05 ≈ 4 (neutral).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".