Innovative Fusion-Based Strategy for Crop Residue Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to present a new strategy based on fusion at the decision level for modeling the crop residue. To this end, a set of satellite imagery and field data, including the Residue Cover Fraction (RCF) of corn, wheat and soybean was used. Firstly, the efficiency of Random Forest Regression (RFR), Support Vector Regression (SVR), Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and Partial-Least-Squares Regression (PLSR) in RCF modeling was evaluated. Furthermore, to increase the accuracy of RCF modeling, different algorithms results were combined based on their modeling error, which is called the decision-based fusion strategy. The R2 (RMSE) between the actual and modeled RCF based on ANN, RFR, SVR and PLSR algorithms for corn were 0.83 (3.89), 0.86 (3.25), 0.76 (4.56) and 0.75 (4.81%), respectively. These values were 0.81 (4.86), 0.85 (4.22), 0.78 (5.45) and 0.74 (6.20%) for wheat and 0.81 (3.96), 0.83 (3.38), 0.76 (5.01) and 0.72 (5.65%) for soybean, respectively. The error of corn, wheat and soybean RCF estimating decision-based fusion strategy was reduced by 0.90, 0.96 and 0.99%, respectively. The results showed that by implementing the decision-based fusion strategy, the accuracy of the RCF modeling was significantly improved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".