MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362558873 · doi:10.58837/chula.the.2020.139

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

2020· dissertation· en· W4362558873 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nattakorn Kointarangkul

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarbled meatConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Support vector machineComputer scienceArtificial neural networkDeep learningGeographyAnimal scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wagyu beef originated in Japan. However, there are many types of Wagyu beef in the market around the globe. Primary sources include Australia, USA, Canada and the United Kingdom. The authentic Japanese Wagyu is well known for its intense marbling, juicy rich flavor and tenderness. Observing that there are differences in flavor, texture, and quality between distinct sources of Wagyu. This research presents an AI-based approach to identify Wagyu beef sources with image classification. The input images were collected from reliable sources on the internet and augmented with DCGAN. Deep neural networks, CNN, was constructed to detect the marbled fat patterns of two sources, Japanese Wagyu and Australian Wagyu. The prediction of Wagyu sources achieved high accuracy of 94.2%. Further experiment was conducted for multi-classification with the additional source of the US wagyu. The object detection model was trained using Region-based CNN, R-CNN, providing the prediction accuracy of 79.8%. The learning models of Convolutional Neural Networks were found to be promising methods for the rapid characterization of the unique patterns of marbled fat layers. These classifiers would benefit the customers for buying Wagyu beef at reasonable prices.

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 score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207