MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W182887017 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v25i1.7811

Modeling and Monitoring Crop Disease in Developing Countries

2011· article· en· W182887017 on OpenAlexaff
John A. Quinn, Kevin Leyton‐Brown, Ernest Mwebaze

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMobile phoneData collectionData scienceSurvey data collectionProcess (computing)PhoneDeveloping countryWork (physics)Representation (politics)Plant diseaseStatisticsTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information about the spread of crop disease is vital in developing countries, and as a result the governments of such countries devote scarce resources to gathering such data. Unfortunately, current surveys tend to be slow and expensive, and hence also tend to gather insufficient quantities of data. In this work we describe three general methods for improving the use of survey resources by performing data collection with mobile devices and by directing survey progress through the application of AI techniques. First, we describe a spatial disease density model based on Gaussian process ordinal regression, which offers a better representation of the disease level distribution, as compared to the statistical approaches typically applied. Second, we show how this model can be used to dynamically route survey teams to obtain the most valuable survey possible given a fixed budget. Third, we demonstrate that the diagnosis of plant disease can be automated using images taken by a camera phone, enabling data collection by survey workers with only basic training. We have applied our methods to the specific challenge of viral cassava disease monitoring in Uganda, for which we have implemented a real-time mobile survey system that will soon see practical use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207