A dataset of perception and preferences of French consumers for commercial cooked hams sampled according to their nutritional values and claims.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dataset provides sensory and nutritional information for 30 commercial cooked hams (without rind, not flavored) representative of the French commercial segment. The sensory data were collected in two phases. During the first phase (fall 2019, field experiment), 483 consumers, regular consumers of cooked hams, were recruited in seven cities and vicinities of France. They were instructed to choose and buy cooked hams at the supermarket and evaluate them at home over a period of three months. They were provided with a list of 30 eligible cooked hams selected by the experimenters. A total of 2,758 evaluations were collected (an average of 5.7 evaluations per consumer). During the second phase (fall 2020, lab experiment), a selection of 16 cooked hams were evaluated at blind by 86 consumers in a sensory analysis laboratory using a complete balanced design. Sensory evaluation at home and in the laboratory included liking Just-About-Right (colour, fat, salt and texture) measurements. In the field experiment, consumers were additionally asked to describe with free comments the appearance, texture and flavour of tested hams and of a virtual “ideal ham”. They also had to report the price they paid for a pack of four slices of ham and their intentions to repurchase the tested hams. Other data on cooked hams included actual salt and fat contents (measured using physicochemical analyses) and information displayed on the packaging (type of brand, nutritional claims, labels).
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".