Neural network models to predict the maturity of spring wheat in western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and the railways require accurate predictions of harvest dates to facilitate the movement of grain from the Canadian Prairies. Our objective was to develop neural network (NN) models to predict, 4–8 wk in advance, the maturity date of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) across the Prairies with an accuracy of 0.5 wk. We used soil and climatic zone information, cultivar, CWB wheat class, seeding date, and the first 9 wk of weather after seeding to predict days to maturity in the standing crop from seeding date. Our first Prairie-wide model (MD1), derived from data at 76 locations over 1970 –1995, performed well (R 2 = 0.82–0.83, average absolute error = 3.0–3.1 d), but used solar radiation inputs, which may not always be available. Therefore, a second model (MD2) was developed (R 2 = 0.76–0.80, average absolute error = 3.3–3.4 d) without solar radiation inputs. A third model (MD3) was developed (R 2 = 0.72, average absolute error = 3.8 d) specifically for Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat grown at dryland locations. The MD2 and MD3 models were tested on more recent (1996–1998) data, but their performance was poor (R 2 = 0.26–0.33; average absolute errors = 5.2–6.9 d) because of differences in the weather data. Thus, a fourth model (MD4) was developed (R 2 = 0.85–0.90; average absolute error = 2.7–2.8 d) using 1989–1998 crop data from 19 locations combined with more recent Environment Canada “Real Time” Weather (ECRTW) data. Considering the variation in soil types, cultivars, seeding dates, and weather conditions across the Prairies, the NN models gave accurate predictions of wheat maturity. Key words: Neural networks, model, wheat, maturity, weather, Canadian prairies
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".