Consumer Perception of Plant‐Based Chocolate Bars Using Static and Dynamic Sensory Methodologies
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
ABSTRACT The plant‐based chocolate market has been growing in recent years due to consumer preference for environmentally friendly plant‐based foods, as well as those who are avoiding milk ingredients due to lactose intolerance. The study aimed to evaluate the sensory properties of plant‐based chocolate in comparison to conventional milk chocolate using two different studies (1) Hedonic scales and check‐all‐that‐apply [CATA] and (2) temporal‐check‐all‐that‐apply [TCATA]. All assessors ( n = 94 for the first study and n = 81 for the second study) were interested in plant‐based alternatives, and they were asked about their beliefs about plant‐based chocolate before and after consumption during the TCATA study. The plant‐based chocolates were found to have different sensory properties than the milk chocolate (in both the CATA and TCATA task) and were associated with more bitterness and powderiness than the conventional chocolate, as well as being less sweet and leading to mouthcoating. The plant‐based chocolates were also associated with off‐flavors. The milk chocolate sample was associated with sweet, milky, melts in mouth, and cocoa, which increased liking. The assessors' beliefs about plant‐based chocolate were influenced by their consumption as their selection of tasty and familiar increased after consuming the plant‐based chocolates while the selection of healthy, sustainable, expensive, and natural significantly decreased. This study identified how consumers perceive the sensory properties of plant‐based chocolates, as well as identifying how their beliefs about plant‐based chocolates can be impacted after consuming the food.
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