MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114191719 · doi:10.5430/air.v1n1p84

Predicting the rates of cross-pollination between GM and non-GM crops using RBFNN with SVM and bootstrap approach

2012· article· en· W2114191719 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chien-Pang Lee, Wen-Shin Lin, Bo‐Jein Kuo, Kuo‐Chung Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in Insects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollinationSupport vector machineMean squared errorCross-validationAgricultureComputer scienceStatisticsMachine learningBiotechnologyMathematicsArtificial intelligenceBiologyPollenBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, genetically modified (GM) technology has been successfully used to reduce the cost and to enhance the profit in agriculture. Although GM technology brings many benefits for non-food crops, people still misgive the effects of GM products for the health and the environment. Furthermore, GM crops might affect food (non-GM) crops in the open environment. Hence, how to find strategies for the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops are become a popular issue. One of the strategies is to determine a befitting distance between GM and non-GM crops to reduce the cross-pollination occurred by predicting the rate of cross-pollination. Owing to most of the existing methods for predicting the cross-pollination rates of non-GM crops are only based on the distance between GM and non-GM crops. To counter this problem, we propose a hybrid method, which is composed of radial basis function neural network (RBFNN), support vector machine (SVM) and bootstrap, to apply in this issue. The proposed method includes three specificities. (a) The proposed method reduces the effect of imbalance class problem. (b) The proposed method uses more variables, which are effect the cross-pollination rates, for prediction to enhance the prediction accuracy. (c) The proposed method searches relevant samples to reduce execution time and enhance the prediction accuracy. The results show the performance of our method is better than the existing methods in terms of the root mean square error (RMSE) in prediction and the correlation coefficient between the actual and the predicted cross-pollination rates.

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Intelligence ResearchSame topicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in InsectsFrench-language works237,207