MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966003450 · doi:10.3390/s19153335

Non-Invasive Tools to Detect Smoke Contamination in Grapevine Canopies, Berries and Wine: A Remote Sensing and Machine Learning Modeling Approach

2019· article· en· W2966003450 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sigfredo Fuentes, Eden Tongson, Roberta De Bei, Claudia Gonzalez Viejo, Renata Ristić, Stephen D. Tyerman, Kerry L. Wilkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilAlberta Water Research Institute
KeywordsSmokeOverfittingVineyardContaminationEnvironmental scienceWineComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingHorticultureChemistryEngineeringWaste managementFood scienceGeographyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bushfires are becoming more frequent and intensive due to changing climate. Those that occur close to vineyards can cause smoke contamination of grapevines and grapes, which can affect wines, producing smoke-taint. At present, there are no available practical in-field tools available for detection of smoke contamination or taint in berries. This research proposes a non-invasive/in-field detection system for smoke contamination in grapevine canopies based on predictable changes in stomatal conductance patterns based on infrared thermal image analysis and machine learning modeling based on pattern recognition. A second model was also proposed to quantify levels of smoke-taint related compounds as targets in berries and wines using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIR) as inputs for machine learning fitting modeling. Results showed that the pattern recognition model to detect smoke contamination from canopies had 96% accuracy. The second model to predict smoke taint compounds in berries and wine fit the NIR data with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.97 and with no indication of overfitting. These methods can offer grape growers quick, affordable, accurate, non-destructive in-field screening tools to assist in vineyard management practices to minimize smoke taint in wines with in-field applications using smartphones and unmanned aerial systems (UAS).

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations37
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207