Detection of Curved Rows and Gaps in Aerial Images of Sugarcane Field Using Image Processing Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sugarcane is one of the main crops in the world due to its economic value promoted by the sale of its derivatives, such as bioethanol and sugar. In order to achieve greater economic performance and productivity in the sugarcane field, several digital image processing studies have been conducted on sugarcane field images. However, mapping and measuring gaps in the planting rows are still being performed manually on-site to determine whether to replant the entire area or only the gaps. High cost of time and manpower is required to perform the manual measurement. Based on that, the aim of this study is to present a novel method to detect crop rows and measure gaps in crop fields. Our method is also able to deal with curved crop rows, which is a real problem and substantially limits numerous solutions in practical applications. The proposed method is evaluated using a mosaic of real scene image that was prepared with the support of a small remotely piloted aircraft. Experimental tests showed a low relative error of approximately$1.65$% compared to manual mapping in the planting regions, even for regions with gaps in the curved crop rows. It means that our proposal can identify and measure crop rows accurately, which enables automated inspections with high-precision measurements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".