MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610853046 · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2018.2824814

Machine Vision System for 3D Plant Phenotyping

2018· preprint· en· W2610853046 on OpenAlexafffund
Ayan Chaudhury, Christopher D. Ward, Ali Talasaz, Alexander G. Ivanov, Mark Brophy, Bernard Grodzinski, Norman P. A. Huner, Rajni V. Patel, John A. Barron

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPoint cloudRobotComputer scienceMachine visionPlant factoryScannerPayload (computing)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceThroughputLaser scanningArabidopsis thalianaBiologyBotanyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine vision for plant phenotyping is an emerging research area for producing high throughput in agriculture and crop science applications. Since 2D based approaches have their inherent limitations, 3D plant analysis is becoming state of the art for current phenotyping technologies. We present an automated system for analyzing plant growth in indoor conditions. A gantry robot system is used to perform scanning tasks in an automated manner throughout the lifetime of the plant. A 3D laser scanner mounted as the robot's payload captures the surface point cloud data of the plant from multiple views. The plant is monitored from the vegetative to reproductive stages in light/dark cycles inside a controllable growth chamber. An efficient 3D reconstruction algorithm is used, by which multiple scans are aligned together to obtain a 3D mesh of the plant, followed by surface area and volume computations. The whole system, including the programmable growth chamber, robot, scanner, data transfer, and analysis is fully automated in such a way that a naive user can, in theory, start the system with a mouse click and get back the growth analysis results at the end of the lifetime of the plant with no intermediate intervention. As evidence of its functionality, we show and analyze quantitative results of the rhythmic growth patterns of the dicot Arabidopsis thaliana (L.), and the monocot barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) plants under their diurnal light/dark cycles.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and BioinformaticsSame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207