MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328054382 · doi:10.18280/ts.400107

Study on Feedback and Correction of Tomato Picking Localization Information

2023· article· en· W4328054382 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shuangyou Wang, Guohua Gao, Ciyin Shuai

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the process of picking tomatoes, due to the mechanical error caused by the mechanical arm, the tomato positions cannot be detected accurately, and the information feedback of the positioning is not available, affecting the picking efficiency.Therefore, this article proposed visual feedback information and correction, and designed an improved yolov5s model lightweight detection method, whose backbone network was replaced with lightweight ShuffleNetV2.In addition, the Bidirectional Feature Pyramid Network (BiFPN) was added to obtain richer feature information.Experimental results showed that the improved model achieved 97.4 percent mAP, 97.5 percent accuracy and 1.89 MB model size, with inference time of 4.8 ms per image.This detection method quickly calculated the Euclidean distance between the reference point and the target tomato.The target tomato, with the Euclidean distance less than 58.12 mm, was picked successfully, while the one, with the Euclidean distance greater than 58.12 mm, was not picked.Then the error needs to be calculated and fed back to the robot for picking again.The whole process realized information feedback and correction and improved the picking efficiency with less feedback time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207