MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185881337 · doi:10.1002/ppj2.20019

Measuring canopy height in soybean and wheat using a low‐cost depth camera

2021· article· en· W3185881337 on OpenAlexaff
Malcolm J. Morrison, Alison Claire Gahagan, Marc Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Phenome Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanopyPhenomicsGrowing seasonPoint cloudRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceThroughputAgronomyMathematicsGeographyComputer scienceBiologyArtificial intelligenceBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Canopy height is an essential trait in high throughput phenotyping that is often only captured as a single point, which is not always representative of canopy height. New 3D depth cameras such as the RealSense D415 (Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA) may provide a fast and affordable solution for measuring height from portable, ground‐based phenomics systems. Our goal was to determine if the D415 was effective at measuring crop heights under field conditions in wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) and soybean ( Glycine max ) plots. The D415 camera was integrated into our PlotCam platform using the open software development kit from Intel. Distance arrays were captured for each plot at weekly intervals over the growing season. These were compared to canopy heights measured using a single point LiDAR (SPL) system operated by hand. Over the growing season the D415 heights were significantly correlated with the SPL heights in both wheat and soybean with coefficients of 0.77 and 0.95 and NRMSE 0.23 and 0.17 m, respectively. Early season D415 height measurements were not as similar to the SPL as the mid‐and late‐season measurements in wheat and soybean. The relatively low cost and open software development kit of the D415 makes it a promising tool for high throughput phenotyping applications.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant Phenome JournalSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207