Detection of Cassava Leaves in Multi-Temporally Acquired Digital Images of a Cassava Field Under Different Brightness Levels by Simultaneous Binarization of the Images Based on Indices of Redness/Greenness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant leaf area reveals various types of abnormalities which can enable appropriate plant/crop management actions. The quantification of plant leaf area is now feasible using commonly available digital photographing tools. Changes in brightness, however, make it difficult to compare leaf areas in digital photographs acquired at multiple time points. This difficulty could be overcome by employing an index of redness/greenness (R/G), which was suggested to be one of the best indices to discriminate between plant leaves and other objects such as soils. R/G and other indices were examined when discriminating cassava leaves from other objects in a field. A surveillance camera captured digital photographs on a daily basis. Of these, 183 photographs were stored. They were pasted into a single image file and simultaneously analyzed. The International Commission on Illumination color model’s a* was the best index in the discrimination, with a distinctiveness score of 1.36. R/G was the second best, with a distinctiveness score of 0.70. The percentage of leaf-likely pixels followed sigmoidal patterns with time, resulting in great coefficients of determination of 0.981 (a*) and 0.965 (R/G). The percentage of leaf-likely pixels and cassava leaf weight had a real-time response relationship. The range of the 95% confidence limit was narrowed from -16 to +14% of a predicted value of 98% leaf-likely pixels for R/G to ±12% for a*. Thus, the simultaneous binarization and the detection of leaf-likely pixels in the photographs acquired under different brightness levels was enabled with improved discrimination accuracy by employing a*.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".