MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224249136 · doi:10.3390/s22083043

Digital Transformation in Smart Farm and Forest Operations Needs Human-Centered AI: Challenges and Future Directions

2022· article· en· W4224249136 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Holzinger, Anna Saranti, Alessa Angerschmid, Carl Orge Retzlaff, Andreas Gronauer, Vladimir Pejaković, Francisco Medel-Jiménez, Theresa Krexner, Christoph Gollob, Karl Stampfer

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAustrian Science Fund
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceBig dataLeverage (statistics)Data scienceEngineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main impetus for the global efforts toward the current digital transformation in almost all areas of our daily lives is due to the great successes of artificial intelligence (AI), and in particular, the workhorse of AI, statistical machine learning (ML). The intelligent analysis, modeling, and management of agricultural and forest ecosystems, and of the use and protection of soils, already play important roles in securing our planet for future generations and will become irreplaceable in the future. Technical solutions must encompass the entire agricultural and forestry value chain. The process of digital transformation is supported by cyber-physical systems enabled by advances in ML, the availability of big data and increasing computing power. For certain tasks, algorithms today achieve performances that exceed human levels. The challenge is to use multimodal information fusion, i.e., to integrate data from different sources (sensor data, images, *omics), and explain to an expert why a certain result was achieved. However, ML models often react to even small changes, and disturbances can have dramatic effects on their results. Therefore, the use of AI in areas that matter to human life (agriculture, forestry, climate, health, etc.) has led to an increased need for trustworthy AI with two main components: explainability and robustness. One step toward making AI more robust is to leverage expert knowledge. For example, a farmer/forester in the loop can often bring in experience and conceptual understanding to the AI pipeline-no AI can do this. Consequently, human-centered AI (HCAI) is a combination of "artificial intelligence" and "natural intelligence" to empower, amplify, and augment human performance, rather than replace people. To achieve practical success of HCAI in agriculture and forestry, this article identifies three important frontier research areas: (1) intelligent information fusion; (2) robotics and embodied intelligence; and (3) augmentation, explanation, and verification for trusted decision support. This goal will also require an agile, human-centered design approach for three generations (G). G1: Enabling easily realizable applications through immediate deployment of existing technology. G2: Medium-term modification of existing technology. G3: Advanced adaptation and evolution beyond state-of-the-art.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.014
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations172
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207