Recognition of weeds with image processing and their use with fuzzy logic for precision farming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yang, C.-C., Prasher, S.O., Landry, J.-A., Perret, J. and Ramaswamy, H.S. 2000. Recognition of weeds with image processing and their use with fuzzy logic for precision farming. Can. Agric. Eng. 42:195200. Herbicide use can be reduced if the spatial distribution of weeds in the field is taken into account. This paper reports the initial stages of development of an image capture/processing system to detect weeds, as well as a fuzzy logic decision-making system to determine where and how much herbicide to apply in an agricultural field. The system used a commercially available digital camera and a personal computer. In the image processing stage, green objects in each image were identified using a greenness method that compared the red, green, and blue (RGB) intensities. The RGB matrix was reduced to a binary form by applying the following criterion: if the green intensity of a pixel was greater than the red and the blue intensities, then the pixel was assigned a value of one; otherwise the pixel was given a value of zero. The resulting binary matrix was used to compute greenness area for weed coverage, and greenness distribution of weeds (weed patch). The values of weed coverage and weed patch were inputs to the fuzzy logic decision-making system, which used the membership functions to control the herbicide application rate at each location. Simulations showed that a graduated fuzzy strategy could potentially reduce herbicide application by 5 to 24%, and that an on/off strategy resulted in an even greater reduction of 15 to 64%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".