MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Emotion-Aware Recipe Generation Framework Using Distilbert and Large Language Models

2025· article· en· W4412446474 on OpenAlexaff
Roshaan JS, K Srisanjana, D Madhumitha, Shivanandham R.S, R. Subha, S. Ananthi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsFuture Earth
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecipeComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional food recommendation systems often provide static meal suggestions based on previous user behavior, without the ability to develop tailored recipes based on current emotional states. This study presents an emotion-aware recipe generating framework that dynamically generates personalized culinary recommendations based on user-provided emotional inputs. The system uses a pre-trained DistilBERT model for sentiment classification and keyword-based food concept mapping to match emotions to relevant food categories. These inputs are subsequently processed by Falcon-7B-Instruct, a big language model, which uses rapid engineering to generate entire, structured recipes in plain language that include both ingredients and preparation instructions. Unlike existing methods that rely on curated food databases, our approach makes use of the generative capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to provide context-sensitive, emotionally meaningful recipe recommendations. The overarching goal is to improve user engagement and fulfilment by tailoring nutritional recommendations to individual emotional states, resulting in a novel junction of affective computing and customized nutrition.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207