MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212894930 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v23i4.4480

In Pursuit of the World’s Best Steak – Advanced Robotics and X-ray Technology to Transform an Industry

2021· article· en· W4212894930 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christian Ruberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of PittsburghJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsAutomationRoboticsTraceabilityProductivityInvestment (military)Artificial intelligenceMeat packing industryEngineeringManufacturing engineeringRobotBusinessComputer scienceMechanical engineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Australia strives to be the world’s preferred supplier of premium red meat, but it is challenged by having a high cost structure. In response, Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA), the processing industry, and key technology providers have spent the last 14 years developing and implementing robotic automation supported by advanced real time sensing technology such as x-ray imaging. This paper outlines the investment strategy behind collaborating with the world’s leading companies, and successfully integrating: meat science, industrial robotics, medical imaging, and airline baggage inspection security systems, into Australian beef and sheep meat supply chains. These world-first systems, that were initially implemented in lamb processing, feature: robotic cutting, dual energy x-ray, machine vision, laser sensing, and carcase traceability for producer feedback. The beef processing sector is now set to benefit from the learnings and technical progress demonstrated in lamb processing. These innovations have moved Australia into first place for advanced red meat processing automation and have delivered in some cases an under 2-year capital payback with an up to 25% improvement in boning room productivity.

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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207