Using a machine learning approach and big data to augment WASDE forecasts: Empirical evidence from US corn yield
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
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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