MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3050118069 · doi:10.3390/rs12162640

Delineation of Crop Field Areas and Boundaries from UAS Imagery Using PBIA and GEOBIA with Random Forest Classification

2020· article· en· W3050118069 on OpenAlexafffund
Odysseas Vlachopoulos, Brigitte Leblon, Jinfei Wang, Ataollah Haddadi, Armand LaRocque, Greg Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsA&L Canada Laboratories (Canada)Western UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsRandom forestRemote sensingMultispectral imageObject basedCartographyPixelBoundary (topology)Computer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeographyArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have been proven cost- and time-effective remote-sensing platforms for precision agriculture applications. This study presents a method for automatic delineation of field areas and boundaries that uses UAS multispectral orthomosaics acquired over 7 vegetated fields having a variety of crops in Prince Edward Island (PEI). This information is needed by crop insurance agencies and growers for an accurate determination of crop insurance premiums. The field areas and boundaries were delineated by applying both a pixel-based and an object-based supervised random forest (RF) classifier applied to reflectance and vegetation index images, followed by a vectorization pipeline. Both methodologies performed exceptionally well, resulting in a mean area goodness of fit (AGoF) for the field areas greater than 98% and a mean boundary mean positional error (BMPE) lower than 0.8 m for the seven surveyed 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.

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 score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207