MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378418316 · doi:10.18280/ria.370218

Tomato Crop Disease Classification Using Semantic Segmentation Algorithm in Deep Learning

2023· article· en· W4378418316 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ramesh Babu Padamata, Sri Krishna Atluri

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceSegmentationComputer scienceCropDeep learningPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningAlgorithmAgronomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agriculture is critical to human survival.Almost 70% of the population is involved in agriculture, either directly or indirectly.There are no technologies in the old system to identify diseases in diverse crops in an agricultural environment, which is why farmers are not interested in expanding their agricultural productivity all days.Crop diseases control the growth and production of their particular species; hence early detection is also essential.There have been many attempts to use Machine Learning (ML) methods for disease detection and classification in agriculture, but recent advances in a subset of ML called Deep Learning (DL) have given this field of study renewed hope for improved accuracy.The widespread spread of diseases in the tomato crop has an impact on both the quality and quantity of the crop.A rapid, dependable, and non-destructive way of diagnosing Tomato diseases early on may be useful for farmers.The approach employs two deep learning based algorithms, the AlexNet and the SegNet Model, with input including seven different color images of tomato leaves, six of which are afflicted and one of which is healthy.This algorithm is applicable for other plants like potato, corn diseases of bacterial, fungul infection leaves.Some examples of hyperparameters that have been investigated for their effect on classification accuracy and execution time are mini-batch size, weights, and bias learning rate.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207