Accreditation of new technologies for predicting intramuscular fat percentage: Combining Bayesian models and industry rules for transparent decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experiment evaluated a method for statistically assessing the accuracy of technologies that measure intramuscular fat percentage (IMF%), enabling referencing against accreditation accuracy thresholds. To compare this method to the existing rules-based industry standard we simulated data for 4 separate devices that predicted IMF% across a range between 0.5-9.5% for sheep meat. These devices were simulated to reflect increasingly inaccurate predictions, and the two methods for statistically assessing accuracy were then applied. We found that for the technology which only just meets the accreditation accuracy standards, as few as 25 samples were required within each quarter of the IMF% range to achieve 80% likelihood of passing accreditation. In contrast, using the rules based approach at least 200 samples were required within each quarter of the IMF% range, and this increased the likelihood of passing to only 50%. This method has been developed into an on-line analysis App, which commercial users can freely access to test the accuracy of their technologies.
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 | 0.053 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".