Digital Twinning of Hydroponic Grow Beds in Intelligent Aquaponic Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of automation, Internet-of-Things (IoT), and smart technologies is being rapidly introduced into the development of agriculture. Technologies such as sensing, remote monitoring, and predictive tools have been used with the purpose of enhancing agriculture processes, aquaponics among them, and improving the quality of the products. Digital twinning enables the testing and implementing of improvements in the physical component through the implementation of computational tools in a 'twin' virtual environment. This paper presents a framework for the development of a digital twin for an aquaponic system. This framework is validated by developing a digital twin for the grow beds of an aquaponics system for real-time monitoring parameters, namely pH, electroconductivity, water temperature, relative humidity, air temperature, and light intensity, and supports the use of artificial intelligent techniques to, for example, predict the growth rate and fresh weight of the growing crops. The digital twin presented is based on IoT technology, databases, a centralized control of the system, and a virtual interface that allows users to have feedback control of the system while visualizing the state of the aquaponic system in real time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".