MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049694247 · doi:10.3920/qas2012.0114

Eggspectation: organic egg authentication method challenged with produce from ten different countries

2013· article· en· W2049694247 on OpenAlexaffabout
Saskia M. van Ruth, Alex Koot, S.E. Brouwer, Nathalie Boivin, Marina Carcea, Caterina N. Zerva, John‐Erik Haugen, Andreas Höhl, D. Köroglu, Isabel Mafra, S. Rom

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality Assurance and Safety of Crops & Foods · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsOrganic farmingAgricultural scienceProfiling (computer programming)AgricultureChemometricsBusinessMathematicsBiologyChemistryComputer scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many consumers are willing to pay a higher price for organic eggs. Since these eggs retail at a higher price than conventional eggs and their identity is difficult to verify, they are susceptible to fraud. For the authentication of Dutch eggs RIKILT developed an analytical test method based on carotenoid profiling. In the present study, the method was challenged with eggs from 10 countries. Eggs from 94 farms (65 organic, 29 conventional) were subjected to the carotenoid High Performance Liquid Chromatography - Diode Array Detection profiling combined with k-nearest neighbour classification chemometrics to predict the farming management system category: organic or conventional. The eggs from 39 of the 40 EU organic farms and the eggs of 27 of the 29 EU conventional farms, as well as eggs from 17 of the 25 organic farms from outside the EU were classified correctly. The latter lower rate was mainly due to eggs from Turkey; 78% of which were misclassified. The methodology was successful in farming management prediction of the EU eggs, as well as for eggs from Canada, Israel and Norway. The identity of the eggs from Turkey was consistently incorrectly predicted and needs further research.

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 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 score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality Assurance and Safety of Crops & FoodsSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207