Artificial Intelligence Tools and Techniques to Combat Herbicide Resistant Weeds—A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The excessive consumption of herbicides has gradually led to the herbicide resistance weed phenomenon. Managing herbicide resistance weeds can only be explicated by applying high-tech strategies such as artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods. We review here AI-based methods and tools against herbicide-resistant weeds. There are a few commercially available AI-based tools and technologies for controlling weed, as machine learning makes the classification process significantly easy, namely remote sensing, robotics, and spectral analysis. Although AI-based techniques make outstanding improvements against herbicide resistance weeds, there are still limited applications compared to the real potential of the methods due to the challenges. In this review, we identify the need for AI-based weed management against herbicide resistance, comparative evaluation of chemical vs. non-chemical management, advances in remote sensing, and AI technology for weed identification, mapping, and management. We anticipate the ideas will contribute as a forum for establishing and adopting proven AI-based technologies in controlling more weed species across the world.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".