Agroclimatology‐Based Yield Model for Carrot Using Multiple Linear Regression and Artificial Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the relationship between root bulking and agroclimatological factors can aid in predicting the yield and quality of processing carrot ( Daucus carota L.). Field trials (four field seasons) with selected cultivars at various seeding rates, seeding dates, and harvest dates were conducted for three carrot types, viz., baby, diced, and sliced, and yield components were monitored. The corresponding weather data, such as minimum and maximum temperature, solar radiation, and rainfall, were recorded. Data from the 2006, 2007, and 2009 field seasons were used for model development, while 2008 data were reserved for the validation. Following a forward‐stepwise regression procedure to identify highly correlated input factors, feed‐forward back‐propagated artificial neural network (ANN) and multiple linear regression (MLR) models were developed. After validation, the best performing models were identified based on a ranking system that weighed the root mean square error (RMSE) and the fitness of the model ( R 2 ). For baby carrots, the Sugarsnax‐based MLR model exhibited 23% lower RMSE than the ANN for the desirable yield component. In diced carrots, predictions from both models (ANN and MLR) exhibited a good fit, with high R 2 values (0.80–0.90). For sliced carrots, Topcut‐based ANN models predicted the majority of the yield components consistently better than MLR models. When MLR and ANN models were compared, their efficiencies differed with carrot type and yield component. The MLR models underperformed in modeling processes that were inherently nonlinear compared with ANN. Nonetheless, ANN models suffered from overfitting and consequently at times failed to demonstrate extrapolation capabilities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".