Smart Agriculture: A Fruit Flower Cluster Detection Strategy in Apple Orchards Using Machine Vision and Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the application of machine vision and learning techniques to detect and identify the number of flower clusters on apple trees leading to the ability to predict the potential yield of apples. A new field robot was designed and built to collect and build a dataset of 1500 images of apples trees. The trained model produced a cluster precision of 0.88 or 88% and a percentage error of 14% over 106 trees running the mobile vehicle on both sides of the trees. The detection model was predicting less than the actual amount but the fruit flower count is still significant in that it can give the researcher information on the estimated growth and production of each tree with respect to the actions applied to each fruit tree. A bias could be included to compensate for the average undercount. The resulting F1-Score of the object detection model was 80%, which is similar to other research methods ranging from an F1-Score of 77.3% to 84.1%. This paper helps lay the foundation for future application of machine vision and learning techniques within apple orchards or other fruit tree settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".