MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599798820 · doi:10.1002/9781118590263.ch9

Evaluation of Bitterness by the Electronic Tongue: Correlation between Sensory Tests and Instrumental Methods

2017· other· en· W2599798820 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Aliani, Ala'a Eideh, Fatemeh Ramezani Kapourchali, Rehab Alharbi, Ronak Fahmi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectronic tongueElectronic noseTasteTongueComputer scienceFlavorPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceFood scienceMedicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter discusses the importance of the electronic tongue as an invaluable rapid and reliable tool for assessing the bitterness of foods and beverages. Signal processing is one of the important aspects of the electronic tongue. To analyze the data from sensor arrays, several pattern recognition approaches are applied, primarily artificial neural networks (ANN) and principal component analysis (PCA). The electronic tongue system has been widely applied in food and flavor evaluation; sometimes it is paired with the electronic nose to provide wider complementary taste analysis information. Electronic tongues for bitterness evaluation have been successfully approved for various bitter drugs, such as H1-antihistamines, quinine hydrochloride and different antibiotics. Depending on the type of the chemical sensors, the electronic tongue can be a used to classify of a wide range of food items especially those which are known for their bitterness preferences by consumers such as coffee, cocoa, tea and related products.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207