MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Augmented reality systems for weed economic thresholds applications

2010· article· en· W2007248286 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanta Daninha · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeedComputer scienceWeed scienceSoftwareWeed controlAgricultural engineeringEcologyBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The augmented reality (AR) technology has applications in many fields as diverse as aeronautics, tourism, medicine, and education. In this review are summarized the current status of AR and it is proposed a new application of it in weed science. The basic algorithmic elements for AR implementation are already available to develop applications in the area of weed economic thresholds. These include algorithms for image recognition to identify and quantify weeds by species and software for herbicide selection based on weed density. Likewise, all hardware necessary for AR implementation in weed science are available at an affordable price for the user. Thus, the authors propose weed science can take a leading role integrating AR systems into weed economic thresholds software, thus, providing better opportunities for science and computer-based weed control decisions.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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