MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221085916 · doi:10.18280/ria.360102

Weed Detection in Pea Cultivation with the Faster RCNN ResNet 50 Convolutional Neural Network

2022· article· en· W4221085916 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeedConvolutional neural networkDeep learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceResidual neural networkCropMachine learningAgronomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fight against weed remains one of the major challenges in agriculture to improve land productivity. The first and most important step of this fight is to detect and locate this weed. Artificial intelligence has played a very important contribution in this detection. Several applications have been developed using Deep Learning techniques to detect and identify weed, but the variety of weed types complicates this operation. We propose a Deep Learning technique to detect and localize the crop, by training the pretrained Faster RCNN ResNet model with a rich dataset. We developed an algorithm able to detect and ultra-localize the pea crop with a prediction up to 100%. The obtained results show the feasibility of this method to distinguish the crop among weed.

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.

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 score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.184 · 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