MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239742656 · doi:10.1533/9780857095770.400

Grain quality evaluation by computer vision

2012· book-chapter· en· W4239742656 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWoodhead Publishing Limited eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingKernel (algebra)StarchWater contentAgricultural engineeringQuality (philosophy)Grain qualityComputer visionArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceFood scienceMathematicsHorticultureBiologyEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grain quality is defined by several factors such as physical (moisture content, bulk density, kernel size, kernel hardness, vitreousness, kernel density and damaged kernels), safety (fungal infection, mycotoxins, insects and mites and their fragments, foreign material odour and dust) and compositional factors (milling yield, oil content, protein content, starch content and viability). This chapter discusses several computer vision technologies such as colour imaging, hyperspectral imaging, X-ray imaging and thermal imaging and reviews their applications in grain quality evaluation based on the above described grain quality factors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.261 · 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