MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200436465 · doi:10.3390/agronomy11091848

Developing a Realistic Simulation Environment for Robotics Harvesting Operations in a Vegetable Greenhouse

2021· article· en· W3200436465 on OpenAlexaff
Brent Van De Walker, Brendan Byrne, Joshua Near, Blake Purdie, Matthew Whatman, David Weales, Cole Tarry, Medhat Moussa

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouseTestbedRoboticsGRASPComputer scienceGreenhouse gasSimulationArtificial intelligenceAgricultural engineeringEngineeringRobotSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vegetable greenhouse operations are labour intensive. Automating some of these operations can save growers significant costs in an industry with low-profit margins. One of the most demanding operations is harvesting. Harvesting a tomato is a complex operation due to the significant clutter inherent to a greenhouse and the fragility of the object being grasped. Improving grasp and motion planning requires setting up a realistic testbed or testing on-site, which is expensive and time-limited to the growing season and specific environment. As such, it is important to develop a simulation environment to model this operation to help test various strategies before field testing can be conducted. Using the method presented in this work, 3D images are taken from a commercial greenhouse and used to develop a physics-based realistic simulation environment. The environment is then used to simulate a picking operation using various path planning algorithms to investigate the best algorithm to use in this case. The results show that this environment can be used to explore the best approaches to automate harvesting solutions in a vegetable greenhouse environment.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomySame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207