Sensory assessment of pressure-cooked and pureed pulses reveals similarities for chickpea/yellow pea and dry bean/faba bean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dominance of pulses in plant-based protein foods necessitates an investigation into their organoleptic properties. Taste, aroma, flavor, and trigeminal attribute intensities of purees obtained from pressure-cooked black bean, chickpea, faba bean, green lentil, pinto bean, and yellow pea were assessed using a trained panel. All pulse purees had similar dry matter content and relatively similar particle size distribution profiles; thus, these factors would not influence the intensities of the sensory attributes. The pulse-like attribute was consistently rated highly across all the pulse purees. The black, pinto, and faba bean purees mostly exhibited similar characteristics whilst chickpea and yellow pea purees behaved similarly. For example, the dry beans and faba bean purees had higher intensities for the bitter, earthy, and metallic aromas and lower intensities for the green, floury/starchy, sweet, and nutty aromas than those for the chickpea and yellow pea purees. Interestingly, green lentil puree largely exhibited intensities that were typical of dry bean purees. Some attributes were perceived to be more intense when assessed as tastes than aromas or vice versa. The same was also observed for attributes that were assessed as both aroma and flavor. It was found that the sensitivity of the mode of perception on the perceived intensity of an attribute may depend on the type of pulse. The similarities in sensory profiles of the pulses can be useful to first, the food industry to expand on ingredients in formulations without drastic effects on the sensory quality and second, the consumers who are neophobic.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".