MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410556228 · doi:10.1117/12.3051983

A smart automation platform for cultured meat advancement

2025· article· en· W4410556228 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas L. Grzelak, Yuandi Wu, S. Andrew Gadsden, P. Ravi Selvaganapathy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomationComputer scienceEmbedded systemEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the world population continues to grow and demand for protein increases, there are growing difficulties with conventional livestock farming practices. Traditional meat production is a relatively long process, sensitive to environmental factors and supply chain issues. Ranching is resource-intensive and a large contributor to climate change. Lab-grown meat seeks to address these issues by providing a more sustainable method of gathering protein for consumption. The process starts with primary animal cells found through a tissue biopsy or with a cell line. The cells are then proliferated in growth media where conditions are tightly controlled. Once enough mass is grown, the cells morph into other cell types where they can be formed into tissue resembling a cut of meat associated with that animal. With evermore research on cell types, growth media, and techniques, discoveries are being made; yet there is limited ability to make predictions from past findings. A major barrier in the discipline is automated and accurate data collection. While experiments take a long time to complete, they often come with nonstandard practices, contamination, or other human errors. The lack of data makes artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms inaccessible which further slows discoveries in the field. To confront these challenges, this paper proposes an automation platform using robotics and sensing technology to streamline the experimental process. The system is poised to combat data scarcity allowing computer scientists to support the field through AI models promoting future breakthroughs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207