Comparing Two Statistical Discriminant Models with a Back-Propagation Neural Network Model for Pairwise Classification of Location and Crop Year Specific Wheat Classes at Three Selected Moisture Contents Using NIR Hyperspectral Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Knowledge of wheat classes and seed moisture contents not only determines the end use of wheat flour but also helps in developing effective storage systems for wheat. Samples of four classes of wheat, including Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS), Canada Western Hard White Spring (CWHWS), Canada Western Soft White Spring (CWSWS), and Canada Prairie Spring Red (CPSR), were obtained from at least five different locations for each class in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 crop years and conditioned to moisture contents of 13%, 16%, and 19%. Near-infrared (NIR) hyperspectral images were acquired from bulk samples in the 960-1700 nm wavelength region at 10 nm intervals. The first and second principal component score images were compared for the segmented images of all wheat classes. Pairwise wheat class identification was done using a non-parametric statistical model and a four-layer back-propagation neural network (BPNN) model. The NIR wavelengths of 1260 to 1380 nm had the highest factor loadings for the first principal component using principal component analysis (PCA). The four-layer BPNN model was used for two-class identification of wheat classes. Overall average pairwise classification accuracies of 83.7% were obtained for discriminating wheat samples based on their moisture contents. Average classification accuracies of 83.2%, 75.4%, and 73.1%, were obtained for identifying wheat classes for samples with 13%, 16%, and 19% moisture content (m.c.), respectively. In this study, discriminant models yielded better classification accuracies than BPNN models. Overall average classification accuracies of wheat classes using statistical models were 80.6% for the linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and 76.3% for the quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA). This work showed that NIR hyperspectral imaging can be used as a potential nondestructive tool for classifying moisture-specific wheat classes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".