MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2130818187 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2000.860526

Multivariate analysis of airborne remote sensing and topographic features for corn yield spatial pattern discrimination

2002· article· en· W2130818187 on OpenAlexafffund
C.Z. Serele, Q.H.J. Gwyn, Jeff Boisvert, Elizabeth Pattey, S. Brazeau, Niall McLaughlin, G. Daoust

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsYield (engineering)Vegetation (pathology)Linear discriminant analysisPixelRemote sensingPrincipal component analysisTexture (cosmology)Normalized Difference Vegetation IndexElevation (ballistics)Multivariate analysisPattern recognition (psychology)Moment (physics)Environmental scienceArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematicsGeologyComputer scienceAgronomyImage (mathematics)Leaf area index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multivariate discriminant analysis (MDA) was applied to airborne remotely sensed and topographic data to select the best indicators of corn yield spatial variability. In the MDA models, elevation, slope and texture indices (contrast and second angular moment) contribute most to the discrimination of corn yield classes. The classification of yield based on the MDA results in yield classes that are well sorted in a proportion of 99% low and 71% medium yield pixels, while high yield pixels were correctly classified in 88% of the cases. The overall classification rate of 86% demonstrates that, on the basis of MDA, using texture indices and topographic data and, to a lesser extent vegetation indices, the authors can discriminate corn yield spatial patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing in Agriculture→French-language works237,207→