MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319586357 · doi:10.1109/icdmw58026.2022.00137

Corn Grain Yield Prediction Using UAV-based High Spatiotemporal Resolution Multispectral Imagery

2022· article· en· W4319586357 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick Killeen, Iluju Kiringa, Tet Yeap

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultispectral imageRemote sensingSatellite imageryImage resolutionVegetation (pathology)Random forestComputer scienceSatellitePopulationEnvironmental scienceArtificial intelligenceGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food demand is expected to rise significantly by 2050 due to the increase in population; additionally, receding water levels, climate change, and a decrease in the amount of available arable land will threaten food production. Yield precision maps, an application of precision agriculture, can be used by farmers to address these challenges by reducing input costs and optimizing yield. These maps can be created using machine learning models trained on field data (e.g., imagery data). Although performing satellite-based remote sensing to gather imagery has some advantages, using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)s is favorable over satellite-based approaches due to the higher spatial and temporal resolutions of the imagery. Vegetation indices (VI)s can be computed from the imagery and can represent the state or condition of vegetation. The present work performed yield prediction regression experiments that analyzed the effects of image spatial resolution (satellite vs. UAV) on prediction results, compared and ranked the prediction power of 33 VIs (and 5 raw-bands) over the growing season, and explored the optimal image acquisition date that produced the best prediction results. We gathered yield data and UAV-based multispectral imagery from a Canadian smart farm and trained random forest (RF) and linear regression (LR) machine learning models. High spatial resolution data generally led to better prediction results than lower spatial resolution data, especially for the RF model, where regardless of the VI choice or image acquisition date, good results were obtained. VIs that included the near-infrared and/or red-edge band generally performed better than the red-green-blue (RGB) VIs. The best performing VIs were: simple ratio index (near-infrared (NIR) & red-edge), normalized difference vegetation index with red-edge instead of red, normalized green index, green chlorophyll index, and simple ratio index (NIR & green). When higher spatial resolution imagery was available, optimized soil-adjusted vegetation index and renormalized difference vegetation index also performed well. We found that imagery from the middle of the growing season produced the best prediction results, even for some RGB VIs and raw-bands.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW)Same topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207