Can In-Line Iodine Value Predictions (NitFomTM) Be Used for Early Classification of Pork Belly Firmness?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commercial technologies for assessing meat quality may be useful for performing early in-line belly firmness classification. This study used 207 pork carcasses to measure predicted iodine value (IV) at the clear plate region of the carcass with an in-line near-infrared probe (NitFomTM), calculated IV of belly fat using wet chemistry methods, determined the belly bend angle (an objective method to measure belly firmness), and took dimensional belly measurements. A regression analysis revealed that NitFomTM predicted IV (R2 = 0.40) and belly fat calculated IV (R2 = 0.52) separately contributed to the partial variation of belly bend angle. By testing different NitFomTM IV classification thresholds, classifying soft bellies in the 15th percentile resulted in 5.31% false negatives, 5.31% false positives, and 89.38% correctly classified soft and firm bellies. Similar results were observed when the classification was based on belly fat IV calculated from chemically analyzed fatty acid composition. By reducing the level of stringency on the percentile of the classification threshold, an increase in false positives and decrease in false negatives was observed. This study suggests the IV predicted using the NitFomTM may be useful for early in-line presorting of carcasses based on expected belly firmness, which could optimize profitability by allocating carcasses to specific cutout specifications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".