MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Agriculture 4.0 and Smart Sensors. The Scientific Evolution of Digital Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities

2021· preprint· en· W3166415497 on OpenAlexaff
Michele Kremer Sott, Leandro da Silva Nascimento, Cristian Rogério Foguesatto, Leonardo B. Furstenau, Kadígia Faccin, Paulo Antônio Zawislak, B. R. Mellado Garcia, Jude Dzevela Kong, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do SulConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsAgricultureField (mathematics)ProductivityThematic mapPrecision agricultureData scienceThematic analysisKnowledge managementComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)BusinessGeographyEconomicsSociologyEconomic growthSocial scienceQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: The agriculture sector is one of the backbones of many countries’ economies and its processes have been changing in order to enable technological adoption to increase productivity, quality, and sustainable development. In this research, we present a theoretical reflection through a scientific mapping of the adoption of precision techniques and breakthrough technologies in agriculture, the so-called Precision Agriculture (PA) and Agriculture 4.0 (A4.0). To do this, we used 4,694 documents from the Web of Science database to perform a Bibliometric Performance and Network Analysis (BPNA) of the literature with the support of the PICOC protocol and the SciMAT software. Our findings present 22 strategic themes related to Digital Agriculture (DA) such as Internet of Things (IoT) and Climate-smart Agriculture (CSA) among others, and the thematic network structures of the motor themes and the thematic evolution structure of the field of the study over time. In addition, our results discuss the main challenges and opportunities of DA. Our findings have the potential to provide insights for practitioners and researchers in decision-making and pave the way for future works.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.121 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207