MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189150550 · doi:10.1117/12.2604971

Detection of Wagyu beef sources with image classification using convolutional neural network

2021· article· en· W3189150550 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nattakorn Kointarangkul, Yachai Limpiyakorn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarbled meatConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceClassifier (UML)Computer scienceDeep learningSupport vector machineArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)GeographyBiologyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wagyu beef originated in Japan. There are many types of Wagyu beef in the market around the globe, though. Primary sources may include Australia, the United States of America, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The authentic Japanese Wagyu is well known for its intense marbling, juicy rich flavor, and tenderness. And there are differences in flavor, texture, and quality between the different types of Wagyu. Nowadays, there is a growing interest in deep learning as a remarkable solution for several domain problems such as computer vision and image classification. In this study, we thus present an AI-based approach to identifying Wagyu beef sources with image classification. A deep neural network, CNN, was constructed to detect the marbled fat patterns of two sources, Japanese Wagyu and Australian Wagyu. The images were collected from reliable sources on the internet and augmented with DCGAN. The prediction of Wagyu sources achieved high accuracy of 95%. The learning model of Convolutional Neural Networks was found to be a promising method for the rapid characterization of the unique patterns of marbled fat layers. The classifier would benefit the customers for buying what they expect from the products in terms of quality and taste.

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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207