MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Statistical Data Validation Methods for Large Cheese Plant Database

2002· article· en· W2080366100 on OpenAlexafffund
S.A. Jimenez-Marquez, Christophe Lacroix, Jules Thibault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDatabaseComputer scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Production data of the cheesemaking process are used to monitor milk fat and protein recoveries in cheese, cheese yield, and composition and eventually to predict these parameters. Due to the large impact of these factors on cheese quality and plant profitability, it is very important to use reliable data for analysis, modeling, and control of the process. This paper tested six methods for detecting erroneous data in industrial cheesemaking databases. The data analyzed came from 4 yr of stirred-curd Cheddar cheese production in an industrial cheesemaking facility, comprising over 10,000 vats. Single vat outliers were detected using a simple statistical criterion of mean +/- 3.6 SD on single variable distributions, Fourier series modeling of seasonal variables (fat, protein, lactose, and total solids in milk, and protein in whey), and the multivariate Mahalanobis outlier analysis. Detection of outlier productions (corresponding to several vats) was done by applying the mean +/- 3.6 SD criterion to variables obtained through calculating the fat mass balance, fat retention coefficient, and yield efficiency. Data treatment enabled the detection of outlier data, but also pinpointed variables with a low reliability (manually registered times). Single variable and multivariable methods proved complementary, and the use of both types of methods is recommended when validating an existing database.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.313 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207