MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123728485 · doi:10.18280/ria.340607

Ensemble Machine Learning Methods to Estimate the Sugarcane Yield Based on Remote Sensing Information

2020· article· en· W3123728485 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandeep Kumar Singla, Rahul Garg, Om Prakash Dubey

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYield (engineering)Ensemble learningMachine learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingGeographyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to investigate the computing capabilities of machine learning algorithms and remotely sensed signals to extract the agricultural information.Many techniques and models have been developed to extract information from the remotely sensed observations, but it remains an exigent problem due to the accuracy, reliability and timeliness parameters.Sugarcane yield estimation based on the temporal profile of multispectral Landsat-8 data has been explored in the proposed work.An initial attempt has been made in this study to select important parameters to be used as input to the machine learning method.Mean Decrease Accuracy and Mean Decrease Gini measures of random forest algorithm have been used to select the important parameters for predictive modelling.The results of the study revealed that Green Normalized Vegetation Index, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index and Land Surface Water Index performed best among other indices.Bands B2, B3, B6 and B7 of Landsat-8 recorded as top scorers.The proposed work focused on ensemble machine learning methods to optimize the correlation of historical crop yield values with spectral information.The Random Forest method exhibits a significant performance (RMSE= 1.51 t/ha and R 2 = 0.94) as compared with other methods such as Classification and Regression Tree, Support Vector Regression and K-Nearest Neighbor.The proposed model based on random forest algorithm is best among all the scenarios and growth stages, whereas model based on classification and regression tree performs worst in all the cases.The proposed study indicates that the numerical value of a single spectral parameter and single-date data is not sufficient for the reliable yield estimation because it is difficult to discriminate some of the crops due to similar phenology in a particular growth period.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207