MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205517364 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2021.3132228

Evaluation of Crop Health Status With UAS Multispectral Imagery

2021· article· en· W4205517364 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Odysseas Vlachopoulos, Brigitte Leblon, Jinfei Wang, Ataollah Haddadi, Armand LaRocque, Greg Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsA&L Canada Laboratories (Canada)Western UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRandom forestSupport vector machineMultispectral imageMean squared errorVegetation (pathology)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceCropFeature (linguistics)Feature selectionLinear regressionRemote sensingMathematicsMachine learningStatisticsGeographyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents the results of a field experiment conducted for assessing the crop health status of several barley and oat crop fields in Prince Edward Island, Canada. The crop fields were mapped with an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) and the crop health status was assessed through the Green Area Index (GAI) and vegetation indices (VIs). GAI maps were produced from the UAS imagery and VIs using machine learning pipelines with several regression algorithms (Multiple Linear Models, Support Vector Machines, Random Forests, and Artificial Neural Networks) along with a feature selection strategy. The Random Forests algorithm was shown to be the best algorithm for GAI prediction with an average relative Root Mean Square Error of 10.86% and a Mean Absolute Error of 0.67. The resulting GAI maps and the regression feature space were classified with Random Forests to discriminate between vigorous and stressed crop areas. We achieved a mean overall accuracy of 94%. The limits of the study are also presented.

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 score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207