Consumer Perception of Sugar Kelp (Saccharina latissima) Addition to Soup
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
Seaweed is a sustainable and nutritionally beneficial ingredient; however, consumers do not regularly eat it in North America. Sugar kelp is one variety of seaweed that is presently underutilized and this study will evaluate Atlantic Canadians’ sensory perception of sugar kelp addition to soup. Participants’ (n = 90) liking and sensory perception of seaweed addition to soup (control [no sugar kelp], 4% wt/wt, 6% wt/wt, 8% wt/wt and 10% wt/wt) was evaluated. A second sensory trial evaluated the amount of sugar kelp the participants (n = 83) would add to the soup if given the opportunity and their resulting sensory perception. The participants used hedonic scales, check-all-that-apply, and general labelled magnitude scales to evaluate the soup. The results identified how consumers perceive sugar kelp in soup, as well as their liking of sugar kelp in soup. In both trials, the participants indicated that sugar kelp could be added at approximately 6% wt/wt without impacting their acceptance. Liking of the soup’s flavour was negatively impacted by the sugar kelp addition; however, it did not impact the amount of soup participants consumed in the second trial. The sugar kelp addition increased the intensity of saltiness and umami at the 6% wt/wt addition level and lower, but at 8% wt/wt the soup was associated with pungency and off-flavours. The results suggest that sugar kelp addition to soup is acceptable at low levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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