MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157306382

Deep Learning Approaches for Forecasting Strawberry Yields and Prices Using Satellite Images and Station-Based Soil Parameters.

2021· article· en· W3157306382 on OpenAlexaff
Mohita Chaudhary, Mohamed Sadok Gastli, Lobna Nassar, Fakhri Karray

Bibliographic record

VenueAAAI Spring Symposium Combining Machine Learning with Knowledge Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGreenhouse Technology and Climate Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep learningArtificial intelligenceEnsemble forecastingConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceEnsemble learningMachine learningArtificial neural network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational tools for forecasting yields and prices for fresh produce have been based on traditional machine learning approaches or time series modelling. We propose here an alternate approach based on deep learning algorithms for forecasting strawberry yields and prices in Santa Barbara county, California. Building the proposed forecasting model comprises three stages: first, the station-based ensemble model (ATT-CNN-LSTM-SeriesNet_Ens) with its compound deep learning components, SeriesNet with Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) and Convolutional Neural Network LSTM with Attention layer (Att-CNN-LSTM), are trained and tested using the station-based soil temperature and moisture data of SantaBarbara as input and the corresponding strawberry yields or prices as output. Secondly, the remote sensing ensemble model (SIM_CNN-LSTM_Ens), which is an ensemble model of Convolutional NeuralNetwork LSTM (CNN-LSTM) models, is trained and tested using satellite images of the same county as input mapped to the same yields and prices as output. These two ensembles forecast strawberry yields and prices with minimal forecasting errors and highest model correlation for five weeks ahead forecasts.Finally, the forecasts of these two models are ensembled to have a final forecasted value for yields and prices by introducing a voting ensemble. Based on an aggregated performance measure (AGM), it is found that this voting ensemble not only enhances the forecasting performance by 5% compared to its best performing component model but also outperforms the Deep Learning (DL) ensemble model found in literature by 33% for forecasting yields and 21% for forecasting prices

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAAAI Spring Symposium Combining Machine Learning with Knowledge EngineeringSame topicGreenhouse Technology and Climate ControlFrench-language works237,207