Applied research note: Predicting carcass portion weights for purebred turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) lines using a 2D imaging system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving carcass portion yields (e.g., breast meat) is a major goal of modern turkey breeding and traditionally requires manual collection of portion weights. This can be a labor-intensive process considering the large amount of data needed to be useful for breeding companies. Recently, there has been increasing interest in using computer vision systems to assess parameters such as size, weight, volume, and grade of poultry meat. The present study developed mathematical equations to predict turkeys’ (4,000) meat yield using a non-invasive real-time 2D carcass imaging system. Although our breast meat models proved to be good, the thigh and drum models did not demonstrate a high correlation between observed and predicted weights probably due to the orientation of the image and any potential shifts made during image capture. These results represent a first step in developing prediction models for valuable turkey carcass portions using practical imaging systems. Further investigations need to take place to demonstrate this system can be more fruitful than simply predicting portion weight off live weight and help the industry to better collect phenotypes in a cost-effective manner.
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 | 0.024 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".