MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Weed Identification using Ultrasonic Sensor in Labview

2015· article· en· W2272787425 on OpenAlex
Kishore Chandra Swain, R. Moitra, Q. U. Zaman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasonic sensorWeedIdentification (biology)AcousticsEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceRemote sensingBiologyGeographyAgronomyPhysicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of weeds and pests in the crop field is a common phenomenon. The success of site-specific pest management depends on accurate identification of the pest and weeds in crop field. An innovative low-cost ultrasonic sensor system was developed to detect weeds and bare spots in wild blueberry cropping system. Ultrasonic sensors were mounted besides the rear wheels of the specially designed Farm Motorized Vehicle. Trimble Ag GPS 332 was mounted above the sensors to locate the exact locations of sensor data points for mapping. Custom software interface was developed in Lab View 8.5 to collect and store the sensor data along with DGPS co-ordinates in a laptop computer. The ultrasonic system calibrated using the fixed height objects in the laboratory and vegetation in the wild blueberry fields. Linear regression analysis showed significant relationship between actual heights and sensor heights (R 2 = 0.98). The survey of the field for weeds and bare spots detection was carried out at a speed of 0.54 m s -1 . The height maps were generated in Arc View 3.2 showing weed patches, bare-spots and wild blueberry plants in selected fields.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.226 · 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