Flatbread and consumers from the Mediterranean area: preference, perception, and innovation acceptance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The FLAT BREAD MINE international research project, funded by PRIMA with EU support, explores innovative technologies and reformulations to develop healthy flatbreads for Mediterranean consumers. A survey across eight Mediterranean countries examined consumption habits, preferences, perceptions, and openness to innovation. Statistical analyses, including logistic and linear regressions, and principal component analysis (PCA), were applied. PCA identified three distinct consumer segments: Mindful (34%), Aesthetic (31.9%), and Practical (34.1%), prioritizing nutrition, sensory qualities, and convenience, respectively. The Mindful group showed the strongest interest in innovation, positioning them as the primary target group for project outcomes. Geographic origin strongly influenced preferences: Middle Eastern consumers favoured double-layered flatbreads and considered them essential, while Europeans preferred single-layered types for their gastronomic and health appeal. Pita was the most popular variety (45.9%). Taste and texture were major drawbacks of gluten-free flatbreads. Part-baked flatbreads were seldom consumed (∼16%) largely due to misconceptions, though interest was higher for shelf storage (40%) than for frozen (24.8%). The most accepted alternative flours were durum wheat (59.7%), corn (53.1%), and oat (53%). Overall, the study enhances understanding of flatbread preferences in the Mediterranean area, underscoring the importance of cultural origin and consumer attitudes in driving innovation in the flatbread industry. • Origin shapes preferences of flatbread, a popular food in the Mediterranean area. • Three flatbread consumer groups identified: Mindful, Aesthetic, and Practical. • Most accepted alternative flours in flatbread: durum wheat, corn, and oat. • Taste and texture are key concerns for gluten-free flatbread consumers. • Part-baked flatbread consumption is rare (∼16%) due to lack of awareness.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".