MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Simple Laboratory Exercise in Food Structure/Texture Relationships Using a Flatbed Scanner

2002· article· en· W1966365771 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science Education · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Chemistry and Fat Analysis
Canadian institutionsMicropharma (Canada)University of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScannerComputer scienceTexture (cosmology)Simple (philosophy)Instrumentation (computer programming)SoftwareQuality (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionHuman–computer interactionEngineering drawingComputer graphics (images)Image (mathematics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: A laboratory experiment is described that has been designed to allow students to gather meaningful structural and mechanical data with limited equipment. Images are acquired using a computer‐interfaced flatbed scanner. Although intended for bread, this approach can be applied to other food products as well. This experiment may be as broad or narrow and as complex or simple as desired. Students have the decided advantage of gathering data themselves, not merely viewing a demonstration of expensive research‐grade instrumentation. Experience with image analysis software facilitates a better understanding of quantifying structural data than can be obtained from lecture or text material. Students should become aware of the dependence a specific property, texture, on the underlying structure of food materials and gain an appreciation of the role food structure has in determining many quality parameters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it