Plant-based seafood alternatives: Current insights on the nutrition, protein-flavour interactions, and the processing of these foods
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
Fish are an important food source; however, the sustainability of current seafood supplies is a major concern for key stakeholders. The development of plant-based seafood alternatives may be suitable products to alleviate some of the pressures on aquatic ecosystems and help support environmental sustainability. However, the wide-spread adoption of these products weighs heavily on the ingredients used in the formulations which should not only satisfy nutritional and sustainability targets but must also meet consumer approval and functionality. In this review, we highlight recent advances in our understanding of the nutritional quality and sensory challenges in particular flavour (which includes taste and aroma), that have so far proven difficult to overcome in the development of plant-based seafood alternatives. Protein interactions that contribute to flavour development in plant-based seafood alternatives and the factors that impact these interactions are also discussed. We also review the recent advances in the innovative technologies used to improve the texture of products in this emerging food category. Finally, we highlight key areas for targeted research to advance the development of this growing segment of food products.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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