MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402541788 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.264

80 Empowering informed choices: How computer vision can assist consumers in making decisions about meat quality

2024· article· en· W4402541788 on OpenAlexaff
Guilherme Lobato Menezes, Rafael Ferreira, Dário Augusto Borges Oliveira, J. P. P. de Araújo, Márcio de Souza Duarte, J.R.R. Dórea

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Supply Chain Traceability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Consumer perception of meat quality is highly influenced by meat tenderness and juiciness. Artificial intelligence technology, such as computer vision systems (CVS), can be a powerful tool to predict such meat attributes in retail markets and help consumers make informed decisions. This study aimed to develop a CVS using smartphone images to classify beef steaks and pork chops tenderness (1), predicting shear-force (SF) and intramuscular fat (IMF) content (2), and performing a comparative evaluation between consumer assessments and the CVS (3). The dataset for beef steak consisted of 915 images (one image per steak), with 691 in the training set, 82 in the validation set, and 142 in the testing set. For pork, there were 514 images (one image per chop), distributed as 377 in the training set, 80 in the validation set, and 57 in the testing set. We trained deep neural networks (Xception), pretrained on the ImageNet dataset, for image classification and regression. The tenderness of the steaks was categorized based on Warner-Bratzler shear-force (N) as tender, intermediate, and tough. To achieve the third object, 1,000 pairwise comparisons were drawn from the 142 testing set images, where both consumers and the CVS performed predictions on tender and tough meat. The option with the least SF in each pair was identified as the most tender meat, with ground truth established using SF measurements. The same pairs were presented to meat consumers through a survey. For classifying beef as tender and tough, the algorithms demonstrated F1-scores of 68.1% and 70.8%, respectively. However, intermediate meat yielded worse results, with an F1-score of 36.4%. The dataset was subsequently re-categorized into two classes: tender and tough, with all intermediate steaks classified as tough, and resulted in an F1-score of 76.6% for tough meat. For classifying pork chops as tender and tough, the algorithms demonstrated F1-scores of 81.4% and 85.7%, respectively. The intermediate class in pork chops also exhibited worse results, with an F1-score of 24.0%. After re-categorizing the dataset into two classes, the F1-score for classifying pork chops as tough was 83.9%. The regression model predicted SF in beef steak and pork chops with R2 of 0.64 and 0.76, and RMSEP of 16.9 N and 9.15 N, respectively. The regression model, after analyzing with 1,000 pairwise comparisons, accurately predicted the tenderest steak with an accuracy of 76.5%. In contrast, human recognition of meat tenderness achieved an average accuracy of 46.7% for beef steak. To predict IMF in beef steaks and pork chops the model achieved R2 values of 0.61 and 0.54, and RMSEP of 2.6% and 1.22%, respectively. These findings suggest that CVS can provide a more objective method for evaluating meat tenderness and IMF before purchase, potentially enhancing consumer satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicFood Supply Chain TraceabilityFrench-language works237,207