Autumn Crop Yield Prediction using Data-Driven Approaches:- Support Vector Machines, Random Forest, and Deep Neural Network Methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate prediction of crop yield before harvest is critical to food security and importation. The calculated ten explanatory factors and autumn crop yield data were used as data sources in this research. Firstly, a Redundancy Analysis (RDA) was employed to carry out explanatory factors and feature selection. The simple effects of RDA were used to evaluate the interpretation rates of the explanatory factors. The conditional effects of RDA were adopted to select the features of the explanatory factors. Then, the autumn crop yield was divided into the training set and testing set with an 80/20 ratio, using Support Vector Regression (SVR), Random Forest Regression (RFR), and deep neural network (DNN) for the model, respectively. Finally, the coefficient of determination (R2), the root mean square error (RMSE), the mean absolute error (MAE), and the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) were used to evaluate the performance of the model comprehensively. The results showed that the interpretation rates of the explanatory factors ranged from 54.3% to 85.0% (p = 0.002), which could reflect the autumn crop yields well. When a small number of sample training data (e.g., 80 samples) was used, the DNN model performed better than both SVR and RF models.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it