Recent developments of e-sensing devices coupled to data processing techniques in food quality evaluation: a critical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A greater demand for high-quality food is being driven by the growth of economic and technological advancements. In this context, consumers are currently paying special attention to organoleptic characteristics such as smell, taste, and appearance. Motivated to mimic human senses, scientists developed electronic devices such as e-noses, e-tongues, and e-eyes, to spot signals relative to different chemical substances prevalent in food systems. To interpret the information provided by the sensors' responses, multiple chemometric approaches are used depending on the aim of the study. This review based on the Web of Science database, endeavored to scrutinize three e-sensing systems coupled to chemometric approaches for food quality evaluation. A total of 122 eligible articles pertaining to the e-nose, e-tongue and e-eye devices were selected to conduct this review. Most of the performed studies used exploratory analysis based on linear factorial methods, while classification and regression techniques came in the second position. Although their applications have been less common in food science, it is to be noted that nonlinear approaches based on artificial intelligence and machine learning deployed in a big-data context have generally yielded better results for classification and regression purposes, providing new perspectives for future studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".