Prediction of Fruit Maturity, Quality, and Its Life Using Deep Learning Algorithms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fruit that has reached maturity is ready to be harvested. The prediction of fruit maturity and quality is important not only for farmers or the food industry but also for small retail stores and supermarkets where fruits are sold and purchased. Fruit maturity classification is the process by which fruits are classified according to their maturity in their life cycle. Nowadays, deep learning (DL) has been applied in many applications of smart agriculture such as water and soil management, crop planting, crop disease detection, weed removal, crop distribution, strong fruit counting, crop harvesting, and production forecasting. This study aims to find the best deep learning algorithms which can be used for the prediction of fruit maturity and quality for the shelf life of fruit. In this study, two datasets of banana fruit are used, where we create the first dataset, and the second dataset is taken from Kaggle, named Fruit 360. Our dataset contains 2100 images in 3 categories: ripe, unripe, and over-ripe, each of 700 images. An image augmentation technique is used to maximize the dataset size to 18,900. Convolutional neural networks (CNN) and AlexNet techniques are used for building the model for both datasets. The original dataset achieved an accuracy of 98.25% for the CNN model and 81.75% for the AlexNet model, while the augmented dataset achieved an accuracy of 99.36% for the CNN model and 99.44% for the AlexNet model. The Fruit 360 dataset achieved an accuracy of 81.96% for CNN and 81.75% for the AlexNet model. We concluded that for all three datasets of banana images, the proposed CNN model is the best suitable DL algorithm for bananas’ fruit maturity classification and quality detection.
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.
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 it