MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3148564872 · doi:10.3390/foods10040717

Spatial Fingerprinting: Horizontal Fusion of Multi-Dimensional Bio-Tracers as Solution to Global Food Provenance Problems

2021· article· en· W3148564872 on OpenAlexafffund
Kévin Cazelles, Tyler Zemlak, Marie Gutgesell, Emelia Myles-Gonzalez, Robert Hanner, Kevin S. McCann

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsProvenanceComputer scienceIdentification (biology)Sensor fusionData scienceData miningBiologyEcologyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building the capacity of efficiently determining the provenance of food products represents a crucial step towards the sustainability of the global food system. Despite species specific empirical examples of multi-tracer approaches to provenance, the precise benefit and efficacy of multi-tracers remains poorly understood. Here we show why, and when, data fusion of bio-tracers is an extremely powerful technique for geographical provenance discrimination. Specifically, we show using extensive simulations how, and under what conditions, geographical relationships between bio-tracers (e.g., spatial covariance) can act like a spatial fingerprint, in many naturally occurring applications likely allowing rapid identification with limited data. To highlight the theory, we outline several statistic methodologies, including artificial intelligence, and apply these methodologies as a proof of concept to a limited data set of 90 individuals of highly mobile Sockeye salmon that originate from 3 different areas. Using 17 measured bio-tracers, we demonstrate that increasing combined bio-tracers results in stronger discriminatory power. We argue such applications likely even work for such highly mobile and critical fisheries as tuna.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207