Free download.
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Understanding SCAA OPS 51 V1.0: A Generic Interpretation file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Understanding SCAA OPS 51 V1.0: A Generic Interpretation book.
Happy reading Understanding SCAA OPS 51 V1.0: A Generic Interpretation Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Understanding SCAA OPS 51 V1.0: A Generic Interpretation at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Understanding SCAA OPS 51 V1.0: A Generic Interpretation Pocket Guide.
Buy Understanding SCAA OPS 51 V A Generic Interpretation: Read Kindle Store Reviews - leondumoulin.nl
Table of contents
Therefore for the wines and coffees, we calculated whether participants agreed with one another in their descriptions [ 21 , 51 ]. To do this, the main responses from the fully transcribed descriptions were identified.
Search the HSDL
For example, a speaker gave the description for a wine displayed in Box 1. Em kersen in de mond. Kersen, ja amarena kersen daar gaat het naartoe. Lichte tannines, beetje bitter, maar mooi. Denk dat hij wel wat houtlaging heeft gehad maar niet overheersend. Em, cherries in the mouth. Light tannins, a little bit bitter, but nice. Modifiers and hedges were ignored unless their exclusion changed the quality description.
Repeated responses e. Accuracy was measured by calculating the percentage of veridical answers. Items that are highly codable typically receive more concise descriptions. Is this true for how wine and coffee experts describe wines and coffees? To test this, a mixed ANOVA with expertise wine experts, coffee experts, novices and naming task wine smell, wine flavor, coffee smell, coffee flavor was conducted, separately over participants F 1 and items F 2.
So, wine experts said more about wines than the other groups, but coffee experts said the same amount as wine experts and novices about coffees, and were more succinct in general. Did the groups rely equally on evaluative, source-based, and non-source-based terms? The answer is no see Fig 1. Wine experts used fewer non-source-based terms e.
Wine experts also used more source-based descriptors e. So, overall, wine experts used more source-based descriptions to describe the smells and flavors of wines; coffee experts used fewer evaluative terms for wine flavor; while overall, novices used more evaluative descriptions.
Associated Data
Overall, experts and novices overwhelmingly relied on source-based descriptions orange. However, wine experts used relatively more source-based terms to describe the smell and flavor of wine, and coffee experts used relatively more source-based terms to describe the flavor of coffee. Novices used more evaluative terms than the experts black to describe the smell and flavor of both coffee and wine.
- leondumoulin.nl | Homeland Security Digital Library at NPS;
- .
- The Hunted: A Space Odyssey.
Overall, then, experts gave more source-based, concrete descriptions for the smells and flavors of the stimuli for which they were expert. Novices, in contrast, appeared to rely more heavily on evaluative terms, especially to describe flavors. Do experts agree with one another more in how they describe wines and coffees? So while wine experts are more consistent in how they describe the smells and flavors of wines, coffee experts are not.
This suggests expertise only has a limited role to play in linguistic codability. Wine experts were more consistent with each other in how they described the smell and flavor of wines than novices and coffee experts. In contrast, coffee experts were not more consistent than wine experts and novices for the smells and flavors of coffees.
The previous analysis only considered agreement on first responses. However, the analyses of description length earlier demonstrated the groups differed in the length of their descriptions. For example, wine experts described wines more elaborately than both other groups. When wine experts talk more, do they identify and name components that were identified by other experts? Or do the longer descriptions diverge more from one another? So, talking more does not seem to increase the likelihood of converging on descriptions of smell and flavor.
Taken together, the results lend some support to the proposal that experts have higher codability for smells and flavors. But this agreement is rather limited in nature. Wine experts showed higher consistency when describing the smells of wines than novices, and when describing the flavor of wine and coffees than coffee experts.
This suggests the wider linguistic and communicative experiences of wine experts may play a critical role for describing smells and flavors, since they perform even better than the coffee experts. However, this main effect is modulated by an interaction revealing domain-specific expertise. Wine experts agree with one another more about the smells and flavors of wines, but only when considering their first responses. When considering all responses, however, this agreement seems to disappear, possibly because each expert is isolating different components of the wine and coming to a unique linguistic profile for their experience.
Coffee experts, on the other hand, only showed more agreement on the smells of coffees when taking all responses into consideration. Neither group showed a general advantage over novices across domains. So, it seems there is only a modest role of expertise when communicating about the smells and flavors of wines and coffees. It is surprising that coffee experts show significantly less consistency for describing coffee flavors, considering describing these flavors is their core business.
To better understand why this might be, we visualized the descriptions using word clouds Fig 3 and Fig 4. In a word cloud, the relative size of a word indicates its relative frequency, with the largest words being the most frequent. The word clouds were made using the R package wordcloud [ 62 ].
Wine experts and novices agreed more in their descriptions and predominantly describing all coffees as bitter and sour. Coffee experts, on the other hand, gave distinct flavor profiles to each coffee. Wine experts agreed on two main qualities: fruit and whether the wine contained tannins. In addition, they identified further distinctive qualities in their descriptions.
Novices commented on a number of taste qualities e. A comparison across the five coffees showed wine experts and novices barely distinguished between the different coffees in their descriptions, while the coffee experts identified distinct flavor profiles. To see whether wine experts also distinguished between the different wines, the same analysis was repeated for the flavor of wine Fig 4.
Experts used different linguistic strategies to describe their domain of expertise. Wine experts had more to say about the smell and flavor of wine, and had higher consistency in their first descriptions. Coffee experts, on the other hand, only showed higher agreement on the smells of coffees when considering their full responses.
Despite these differences, both expert groups relied more on source-based descriptions to describe the stimuli from their expert domain, while novices took a more evaluative stance. In fact, their descriptions provided when blind-tasting coffees overlapped considerably with expert coffee descriptions from a non-blind tasting. This suggests although coffee experts did not show higher agreement, they nevertheless were distinctive in their linguistic descriptions. To further test the domain-specificity of linguistic descriptions of smells and tastes, we tested experts and novices on simple everyday odors e.
We first consider whether there was a general expertise advantage for smells and then tastes. Length: Do experts give more concise descriptions for smell stimuli outside their domain of expertise? Accuracy: We also compared the percentage of correct answers in the full descriptions. There was no significant difference between groups in the percentage of correctly named smells or tastes.
Cafe Culture Issue 37 by Cafe Culture - Issuu
No other word type frequencies were statistically different from the expected model. Overall, when describing everyday smells and basic tastes, wine experts appeared to talk the most, and coffee experts the least. Novices tended to give more evaluative responses for both smells and tastes than experts. Agreement and accuracy did not differ between groups, apart from a slight advantage for naming basic tastes by coffee experts, when all responses were considered.
The smell and flavor of wine and coffee seems to be described differently by wine and coffee experts in comparison to novices. Wine experts agreed more on the smell and flavor of wine, and this coincided with the use of more specific source-based terms compared to novices. Coffee experts used a similar strategy for the smell and flavor of coffee, and their descriptions were more succinct than those of novices.
But this did not lead to higher agreement between the speakers for the smell and flavor of coffee. The results did not show a general influence of expertise on flavor naming.
Differences in talk between wine and coffee experts, where apparent, only appear in their own domains of expertise. So, wine and coffee training only appears to play a limited role in how people talk about smells and flavors. It was unclear from the prior studies whether wine experts really were better at describing the smells and flavors of wines than non-experts.
Previous studies differed in the stimuli used to test the verbal abilities of wine experts, and in the criteria used to measure those descriptions. Some studies used simple odors [ 40 , 46 ], while other studies used wines [ 35 , 39 , 44 ]. Some studies examined the types of terms experts use [ 34 , 35 , 37 , 39 ], while others took more quantitative measures, such as agreement between speakers [ 46 ].