Use of Remote‐Sensing Imagery to Estimate Corn Grain Yield
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote sensing—the process of acquiring information about objects from remote platforms such as ground‐based booms, aircraft, or satellites—is a potentially important source of data for site‐specific crop management, providing both spatial and temporal information. Our objective was to use remotely sensed imagery to compare different vegetation indices as a means of assessing canopy variation and its resultant impact on corn ( Zea mays L.) grain yield. Treatments consisted of five N rates and four hybrids, which were grown under irrigation near Shelton, NE on a Hord silt loam in 1997 and 1998. Imagery data with 0.5‐m spatial resolution were collected from aircraft on several dates during both seasons using a multispectral, four‐band [blue, green, red, and near‐infrared reflectance] digital camera system. Imagery was imported into a geographical information system (GIS) and then georegistered, converted into reflectance, and used to compute three vegetation indices. Grain yield for each plot was determined at maturity. Results showed that green normalized difference vegetation index (GNDVI) values derived from images acquired during midgrain filling were the most highly correlated with grain yield; maximum correlations were 0.7 and 0.92 in 1997 and 1998, respectively. Normalizing GNDVI and grain yield variability within hybrids improved the correlations in both years, but more dramatic increases were observed in 1997 (0.7 to 0.82) than in 1998 (0.92 to 0.95). This suggested GNDVI acquired during midgrain filling could be used to produce relative yield maps depicting spatial variability in fields, offering a potentially attractive alternative to use of a combine yield monitor.
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 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 it