A SAM Based Tool for Semi-Automatic Food Annotation Comparing Food
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) in food and nutrition research is hindered by a critical bottleneck: the lack of annotated food data. Despite the rise of highly efficient AI models designed for tasks such as food segmentation and classification, their practical application might necessitate proficiency in AI and machine learning principles, which can act as a challenge for non AI experts in the field of nutritional sciences. Alternatively, it highlights the need to translate AI models into user-friendly tools that are accessible to all. To address this, we present a demo of a semiautomatic food image annotation tool leveraging the Segment Anything Model (SAM) [15]. The tool enables prompt-based food segmentation via user interactions, promoting user engagement and allowing them to further categorise food items within meal images and specify weight/volume if necessary. Additionally, we release a finetuned version of SAM’s mask decoder, dubbed MealSAM, with the ViT-B backbone tailored specifically for food image segmentation. Our objective is not only to contribute to the field by encouraging participation, collaboration, and the gathering of more annotated food data but also to make AI technology available for a broader audience by translating AI into practical tools.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".