The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparison of 14 Jams Characterized by Conventional Profile and a Quick Original Method, the Flash Profile
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Flash Profile (FP) is a sensory descriptive method derived from Free Choice Profiling where each subject chooses and uses his/her own words to evaluate the whole product set comparatively. Two different panels were set up in order to compare the efficiency of FP with conventional profile on the same 14 products (red fruit jams). The 2 procedures produced similar information both in respect to the way the jams grouped and differed from another. However, FP proved to be faster than conventional profile but less self‐explanatory from a semantic point of view. Flash profile appears to be an interesting alternative method to evaluate quickly an array of products.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Generalized procrustes analysis
Gower, J. C. (1975) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291478 · Cited by 3,267
Meilgaard, M. C., Carr, B. T., & Civille, G. V. (1999) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781003040729 · Cited by 2,382
Sensory Evaluation by Quantitative Descriptive Analysis
Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliver, S., Woolsey, A., & Singleton, R. C. (2004) · Descriptive Sensory Analysis in Practice · doi:10.1002/9780470385036.ch1c · Cited by 1,190
BRANDT, M. A., SKINNER, E. Z., & COLEMAN, J. A. (1963) · Journal of Food Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1963.tb00218.x · Cited by 489
The use of free‐choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports
Williams, A. A., & Langron, S. P. (1984) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740350513 · Cited by 356
Williams, A. A., & Arnold, G. M. (1985) · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740360311 · Cited by 123
Comparing information obtained from ranking and descriptive tests of four sweet corn products
Rodrigue, N., Guillet, M., Fortin, J., & Martin, J.-F. (2000) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/s0950-3293(99)00063-4 · Cited by 43
SENSORY MEASUREMENT OF FOOD TEXTURE BY FREE‐CHOICE PROFILING
Marshall, R. J., & Kirby, S. (1988) · Journal of Sensory Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1745-459x.1988.tb00430.x · Cited by 42
Cited by
Quick and dirty but still pretty good: a review of new descriptive methods in food science
Valentin, D., Chollet, S., Lelièvre, M., & Abdi, H. (2012) · International Journal of Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012.03022.x · Cited by 391
Sort and beer: Everything you wanted to know about the sorting task but did not dare to ask
Chollet, S., Lelièvre, M., Abdi, H., & Valentin, D. (2011) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.02.004 · Cited by 162
De Marchi, F., Aprea, E., Endrizzi, I., Charles, M., Betta, E., Corollaro, M. L., Cappelletti, M., Ferrentino, G., Spilimbergo, S., & Gasperi, F. (2015) · Food and Bioprocess Technology · doi:10.1007/s11947-015-1501-4 · Cited by 43
Tuna, A., Ortiz‐Solà, J., López‐Mas, L., Baser, F., Kallas, Z., Aguiló‐Aguayo, I., Gulec, S., Ozen, B., & Tokatli, F. (2024) · International Journal of Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1111/ijfs.17153 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Dairou, V., & Sieffermann, J. ‐.
- Venue
- Journal of Food Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 826-834
- ISSN
- 0022-1147 (ISSN-L)
- 1750-3841
- OpenAlex
- W2068383134
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 2.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of 14 Jams Characterized by Conventional Profile and a Quick Original Method, the Flash Profile. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb10685.x
- The paper
- Dairou, V., & Sieffermann, J. ‐. (2002). A Comparison of 14 Jams Characterized by Conventional Profile and a Quick Original Method, the Flash Profile. Journal of Food Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb10685.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
