MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170431873 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2002.1026413

Crop/weed discrimination using remote sensing

2003· article· en· W2170431873 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. M. Smith, Robert E. Blackshaw

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeedSpectroradiometerCropRemote sensingPrecision agricultureEnvironmental scienceAgronomyReflectivityAgricultureBiologyPhysicsGeographyOpticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to selectively apply herbicides through the use of weed mapping and variable rate sprayers offers the potential to reduce harmful effects on the environment as well as to optimize producer profitability. Over the past 25 years, there have been numerous studies involving remote sensing and weed/crop discrimination. With the development of greater spectral and spatial resolution sensors and spectral mixture analysis techniques re-investigation of the discrimination of weed and crop species present in cultivated systems appears timely. In a laboratory experiment, the spectral separability of five weeds and two crops of economic importance on the Canadian prairies was investigated. Reflectance from the uppermost fully expanded leaves of field grown plants was examined over the range 350-2500 nm using a field spectroradiometer and an integrating sphere. The various plant species were not separable using the broad bands present on the Landsat TM satellite. However, the weed/crop species could be discriminated using reflectance in approximately 30 10-nm wide bands across the electromagnetic spectrum. Results suggest that hyper-spectral remote sensing could be used for weed/crop mapping and merits further study under field conditions.

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)0.000
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 score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations32
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207