MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766993377 · doi:10.1117/12.2277968

Applying a particle filtering technique for canola crop growth stage estimation in Canada

2017· article· en· W2766993377 on OpenAlexaffabout
Weikai Tan, Xianfeng Jiao, Mehdi Hosseini, Abhijit Sinha, Yifeng Li, Heather McNairn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and Techniques
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAUG Signals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynthetic aperture radarStage (stratigraphy)Computer scienceRemote sensingGround truthPolarimetryCanolaArtificial intelligenceGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate crop growth stage estimation is important in precision agriculture as it facilitates improved crop management, pest and disease mitigation and resource planning. Earth observation imagery, specifically Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data, can provide field level growth estimates while covering regional scales. In this paper, RADARSAT-2 quad polarization and TerraSAR-X dual polarization SAR data and ground truth growth stage data are used to model the influence of canola growth stages on SAR imagery extracted parameters. The details of the growth stage modeling work are provided, including a) the development of a new crop growth stage indicator that is continuous and suitable as the state variable in the dynamic estimation procedure; b) a selection procedure for SAR polarimetric parameters that is sensitive to both linear and nonlinear dependency between variables; and c) procedures for compensation of SAR polarimetric parameters for different beam modes. The data was collected over three crop growth seasons in Manitoba, Canada, and the growth model provides the foundation of a novel dynamic filtering framework for real-time estimation of canola growth stages using the multi-sensor and multi-mode SAR data. A description of the dynamic filtering framework that uses particle filter as the estimator is also provided in this paper.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
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

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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSynthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Applications and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207