Automation of Crop Disease Detection through Conventional Machine Learning and Deep Transfer Learning Approaches
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid population growth, increasing agricultural productivity is an extreme requirement to meet demands. Early identification of crop diseases is essential to prevent yield loss. Nevertheless, it is a tedious task to manually monitor leaf diseases, as it demands in-depth knowledge of plant pathogens as well as a lot of work, and excessive processing time. For these purposes, various methods based on image processing, deep learning, and machine learning are developed and examined by researchers for crop leaf disease identification and often have obtained significant results. Motivated by this existing work, we conducted an extensive comparative study between traditional machine learning (SVM, LDA, KNN, CART, RF, and NB) and deep transfer learning (VGG16, VGG19, InceptionV3, ResNet50, and CNN) models in terms of precision, accuracy, f1-score, and recall on a dataset taken from the PlantVillage Dataset composed of diseased and healthy crop leaves for binary classification. Moreover, we applied several activation functions and deep learning optimizers to further enhance these CNN architectures’ performance. The classification accuracy (CA) of leaf diseases that we obtained by experimentation is quite impressive for all models. Our findings reveal that NB gives the least CA at 60.09%, while the InceptionV3 model yields the best CA, reaching an accuracy of 98.01%.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it