MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7038460854

Influence of growing locations, sample presentation technique and amount of foreign material on features extracted from colour images of Canada Western Red Spring wheat

2010· dissertation· en· W7038460854 sur OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2010
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
Mots-clésSample (material)Kernel (algebra)CropCereal grainHordeum vulgareSpring (device)
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

An area scan colour camera was used to acquire images of single kernels of Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat from different growing locations (nine locations in the year 2007, eight locations in the years 2008 and 2009) in Western Canada. Two sample presentation methods were used. In the first method, fifteen kernels from a single location were imaged in a single image and in the second method one kernel from each location were imaged in the same image. Images of individual kernels of barley and rye were also acquired for a classification study. Bulk images of heaped and flat CWRS samples, heaped and flat barley samples, and images of CWRS wheat mixed with different proportion of foreign materials (0%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 20% barley) were acquired. Morphological, colour, and textural features from single kernel images and colour and textural features from bulk grain images were extracted by a program developed by researchers at the Canadian Wheat Board Centre for Grain Storage Research. The top 30 features from the single kernel images of CWRS wheat samples from different growing locations and also different crop years were compared by Scheffe's test. Image features from two types of presentation methods were also compared. Representative of a composite sample which was generated by randomly selecting kernels from each location was compared with individual locations. Three-way classification of CWRS wheat, barley, and rye was done using the top 30 features. For bulk grain image analysis, features from flat bulk grain samples and heaped bulk grain samples were extracted and compared. Image features of CWRS wheat mixed with different percentages of barley were examined, and a cross-validation discriminant classifier was developed to classify CWRS wheat mixed with different percentages of barley. Classifications were also conducted using flat grain as training, flat and heaped grain in testing. Results from this study indicated that most image features from different growing locations and also different crop year samples had significant differences. However, these differences did not influence three-way classification of CWRS wheat, barley, and rye. Features from the composite sample were compared with those from each location. Composite sample features were different from each location. Hence composite samples may not be representative for all locations. However three-way classification using composite sample features gave similar results as in the case of using each location samples. Canada Western Red Spring wheat and barley samples were used in comparing the image features of flat grain and heaped grain. Results indicated that image features from flat grain were different from heaped grain samples. However a two-way classification applied to heaped and flat CWRS wheat, and also heaped and flat barley, gave perfect classification accuracies. Classification models trained using flat grain also gave perfect classification accuracies when tested using flat and heaped grain. A comparison of the top 30 features extracted from images of CWRS wheat mixed with different proportion of barley revealed that grain image features changed after mixing barley. In classification of CWRS wheat mixed with 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20% barley, classification accuracies of 100, 99, 96, 95, and 98% were obtained, respectively.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,903
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,193

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,004
Tête enseignante GPT0,184
Écart entre enseignants0,179 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Même sujetAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics→Travaux en français237 207→