MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131716080 · doi:10.1080/07038992.2020.1833186

Autumn Crop Yield Prediction using Data-Driven Approaches:- Support Vector Machines, Random Forest, and Deep Neural Network Methods

2020· article· en· W3131716080 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chaoya Dang, Ying Liu, Hui Yue, Jiaxin Qian, Rong Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom forestMean absolute percentage errorMean squared errorSupport vector machineArtificial neural networkStatisticsLinear regressionMathematicsFeature selectionRegressionData setData miningMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.159 · 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
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

Citations96
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207