Ontological how and why: action and objective of planned processes in the food domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The computational modeling of food processing, aimed at various applications including industrial automation, robotics, food safety, preservation, energy conservation, and recipe nutrition estimation, has been ongoing for decades within food science research labs, industry, and regulatory agencies. The datasets from this prior work have the potential to advance the field of data-driven modeling if they can be harmonized, but this requires a standardized language as a starting point. Our primary goal is to explore two interdependent aspects of this language: the granularity of process modeling sub-parts and parameter details and the substitution of compatible inputs and processes. A delicate semantic distinction-categorizing planned processes based on the objectives they seek to fulfill vs. categorizing them by the actions or mechanisms they utilize-helps organize and facilitate this endeavor. To bring an ontological lens to process modeling, we employ the Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology Foundry ontological framework to organize two main classes of the FoodOn upper-level material processing hierarchy according to objective and mechanism, respectively. We include examples of material processing by mechanism, ranging from abstract ones such as "application of energy" down to specific classes such as "heating by microwave." Similarly, material processing by objective-often a transformation to bring about materials with certain qualities or composition-can, for example, range from "material processing by heating threshold" to "steaming rice".
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".