MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319440180 · doi:10.1002/for.2956

Using a machine learning approach and big data to augment WASDE forecasts: Empirical evidence from US corn yield

2023· article· en· W4319440180 on OpenAlexaff
Mitchell Roznik, Ashok K. Mishra, Milton S. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forecasting · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicClimate change impacts on agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYield (engineering)Computer scienceMachine learningAgricultureEconometricsEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper investigates the accuracy of corn yield forecasts using machine learning with satellite and weather data. In addition, the study examines the incremental value of these forecasts to augment the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) forecast. To illustrate the potential of machine learning methods for agricultural forecasting, publicly available data are collected from 1984 to 2021 for national corn yield, state corn yield, satellite variables, and weather variables and used with the XGBoost algorithm. The results show that the XGBoost model performed about the same but did not outperform the WASDE corn yield forecasts over a 12‐year out‐of‐sample period. The incremental value analysis results suggest that the XGBoost and WASDE forecasts capture similar information, and no incremental information exits. Although the XGBoost model does not outperform the WASDE August forecast, it is near real‐time and can be produced using publicly available data. The results indicate that the XGBoost machine learning models can produce reasonably accurate crop yield forecasts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.678
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ForecastingSame topicClimate change impacts on agricultureFrench-language works237,207