MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185241015

THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF REMOTE SENSING AND GIS FOR VINEYARD MANAGEMENT: A SIMPLE BUT POWERFUL APPLICATION OF CHANGE DETECTION

2008· article· en· W2185241015 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert A. Ryerson, Seth Schwebs, Ralph B. Brown, Stephen Boles

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVineyardRemote sensingCommercializationNAPAChange detectionTerroirGeographyFrost (temperature)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceWineMeteorologyArchaeologyBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remote sensing and GIS have been used for day-to-day vineyard management in a quasi-to-fully operational fashion in the Napa Valley area of California (Greater Napa, Sonoma, Lake and Mendocino Counties) and several other regions of the world for the past five to ten years. This paper reviews some of the key papers in the literature and describes the way in which the tools have been used in a fully operational environment. The focus is on their use as a special but simple case of change detection over time – both year to year and over a season. These applications have ranged from thermal sensing to identify areas prone to frost damage in the Niagara Region of Ontario, to the use of high resolution airborne imagery for viticulture research and management in the in the Napa Valley and Oregon wine regions of the United States and the Niagara Region of Canada. Monitoring changes over time has proven to be one of the most valuable contributions of remote sensing for vineyard management. Given the financially compelling reasons for using remote sensing in vineyard management in many regions of the world, the challenge in commercializing such services in other regions has been surprising.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207