Consumer perception of meal replacement beverages: A comparison between younger adults and older adults
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
Meal replacement beverages (MRBs) are consumed by a wide variety of consumers for different reasons. This study evaluated how younger adults (n = 62; aged 18-35) and older adults (n = 63; aged 65 or older) perceive MRBs. The participants started by identifying how they define MRBs. Then, the participants evaluated the sensory properties of five different chocolate-flavored MRBs using hedonic scales and the check-all-that-apply (CATA) method. Participants also identified which factors were important when consuming and purchasing MRBs. The participants highlighted that MRBs should be filling (high satiety) and have nutritional benefits. Both groups of consumers separated the MRBs based on their ingredients (plant-based or dairy-based) and liked MRBs that were sweet, chocolatey, creamy, and salty. The older adults' liking decreased due to the perception of astringency, while younger adults' liking decreased due to bitterness and off-flavors. The older adults also placed greater importance on fiber content, diabetic friendly, satiety, and calcium content than the younger adults, while the younger adults were interested in plant-based and vegan MRBs more so than the older adults. Overall, the sensory perception and hedonic liking were similar between the two groups, but their consumption factors differed. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Understanding consumption, as well as younger and older adults' sensory perception of MRBs, should allow the food industry to create new varieties of MRBs that are well-liked by consumers of different ages. Furthermore, this study identified how consumers currently conceptualize MRBs and why they consume or are interested in MRBs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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