MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967515268 · doi:10.1191/0142331204tm0104oa

Predicting safety and quality of thermally processed canned foods using a neural network

2004· article· en· W1967515268 on OpenAlexaff
Dawod Kseibat, G.S. Mittal, Otman Basir

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkSensitivity (control systems)Thermal diffusivityDependency (UML)Feedforward neural networkFeed forwardProcess (computing)StatisticsApproximation errorComputer scienceMean squared prediction errorMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPhysicsControl engineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An artificial neural network (ANN) for reliably predicting the process temperature (Te) and process time (t) for minimum quality degradation (Foq) during thermal processing of canned foods was developed. Five inputs (can size, initial temperature, thermal diffusivity, sensitivity indicator of micro-organism and sensitivity indicator of quality) were used to predict the process variables Te, t, and Foq. A measure of dependency and statistical tests were used to reduce the number of inputs with little degradation of ANN performance. The feedforward ANN showed satisfactory prediction error. The mean relative error (MRE) was 0.2% in predicting Te, 3.9% in predicting t, and 1.5% in predicting Foq. The ANN showed high MRE in predicting the outputs when tested with the radial basis function (RBF) network.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Institute of Measurement and ControlSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207