Towards an “Internet of Food”: Food Ontologies for the Internet of Things
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated food and drink recognition methods connect to cloud-based lookup databases (e.g., food item barcodes, previously identified food images, or previously classified NIR (Near Infrared) spectra of food and drink items databases) to match and identify a scanned food or drink item, and report the results back to the user. However, these methods remain of limited value if we cannot further reason with the identified food and drink items, ingredients and quantities/portion sizes in a proposed meal in various contexts; i.e., understand from a semantic perspective their types, properties, and interrelationships in the context of a given user’s health condition and preferences. In this paper, we review a number of “food ontologies”, such as the Food Products Ontology/FOODpedia (by Kolchin and Zamula), Open Food Facts (by Gigandet et al.), FoodWiki (Ontology-driven Mobile Safe Food Consumption System by Celik), FOODS-Diabetes Edition (A Food-Oriented Ontology-Driven System by Snae Namahoot and Bruckner), and AGROVOC multilingual agricultural thesaurus (by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization—FAO). These food ontologies, with appropriate modifications (or as a basis, to be added to and further expanded) and together with other relevant non-food ontologies (e.g., about diet-sensitive disease conditions), can supplement the aforementioned lookup databases to enable progression from the mere automated identification of food and drinks in our meals to a more useful application whereby we can automatically reason with the identified food and drink items and their details (quantities and ingredients/bromatological composition) in order to better assist users in making the correct, healthy food and drink choices for their particular health condition, age, body weight/BMI (Body Mass Index), lifestyle and preferences, etc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".