Application of artificial neural networks in image recognition and classification of crop and weeds
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
Yang, C.-C., Prasher, S.O., Landry, J.-A., Ramaswamy, H.S. and DiTommaso. 2000. Application of artificial neural networks in image recognition and classification of crop and weeds. Can. Agric. Eng. 42:147-152. The objective of this study was to develop a backpropagation artificial neural network (ANN) model that could distinguish young corn plants from weeds. Although only the colour indices associated with image pixels were used as inputs, it was assumed that the ANN model could develop the ability to use other information, such as shapes, implicit in these data. The 756x504 pixel images were taken in the field and were then cropped to 100x100-pixel images depicting only one plant, either a corn plant or weeds. There were 40 images of corn and 40 of weeds. The ability of the ANNs to discriminate weeds from corn was then tested on 20 other images. A total of 80 images of corn plants and weeds were used for training purposes. For some ANNs, the success rate for classifying corn plants was as high as 100%, whereas the highest success rate for weed recognition was 80%. This is considered satisfactory, given the limited amount of training data and the computer hardware limitations. Therefore, it is concluded that an ANN-based weed recognition system can potentially be used in the precision spraying of herbicides in agricultural fields.
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