Freshness in Salmon by Hand-Held Devices: Methods in Feature Selection and Data Fusion for Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Salmon fillet was analyzed via hand-held optical devices: fluorescence (@340 nm) and absorption spectroscopy across the visible and near-infrared (NIR) range (400–1900 nm). Spectroscopic measurements were benchmarked with nucleotide assays and potentiometry in an exploratory set of experiments over 11 days, with changes to spectral profiles noted. A second enlarged spectroscopic data set, over a 17 day period, was then acquired, and fillet freshness was classified ±1 day via four machine learning (ML) algorithms: linear discriminant analysis, Gaussian naïve, weighted K -nearest neighbors, and an ensemble bagged tree method. Dual-mode data fusion returned almost perfect accuracies (mean = 99.5 ± 0.51%), while single-mode ML analyses (fluorescence, visible absorbance, and NIR absorbance) returned lower mean accuracies at greater spread (77.1 ± 10.1%). Single-mode fluorescence accuracy was especially poor; however, via principal component analysis, we found that a truncated fluorescence data set of four variables (wavelengths) could predict “fresh” and “spoilt” salmon fillet based on a subtle peak redshift as the fillet aged, albeit marginally short of statistical significance (95% confidence ellipse). Thus, whether by feature selection of one spectral data set, or the combination of multiple data sets through different modes, this study lays the foundation for better determination of fish freshness within the context of rapid spectroscopic analyses.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".