Emerging nondestructive techniques to quantify the textural properties of food: A state‐of‐art review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Texture is an important sensory attribute that drives consumer acceptance of any food material. In recent times consumers' demand for high-quality food urges food industries to provide food with consistent textural properties. However, texture measurement not just requires a trained sensory panel but also a considerable amount of time and effort. On the flip side, human observation could be subjective hence repeatability of the result may not be ensured and/or relied on. Contrary to that, objective methods for texture measurement are reliable and consistent, but are not suitable for in-line application and also destructive in nature. The mentioned crisis has made industries opt for nondestructive texture analysis techniques. In the past decade, considerable research has been carried out on nondestructive texture analysis methods such as micro-deformation, and acoustic and optical techniques, showing feasibility for in-line applications. The current review focuses on the working principles and most recent applications of nondestructive techniques for texture analysis of food products. Moreover, a detailed review of contact and noncontact-type texture measurement has been presented in this article. The literature survey is concluded with future research aspects and challenges involved in the commercialization of the nondestructive texture analysis techniques.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".