MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Low-Cost Photogrammetry Rig for 3D Crop Modelling and Plant Phenomics

2023· preprint· en· W4387524097 on OpenAlexaff
Joe Hrzich, Christopher P. Bidinosti, Michael A. Beck, Christopher J. Henry, Kalhari Manawasinghe, Karen Tanino

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLeaf Properties and Growth Measurement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotogrammetryPoint cloudStructure from motionBespokeComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)Remote sensingComputer graphics (images)GeographyMotion (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photogrammetry is the science of obtaining a 3D scan of an object. Through this process, reliable information about the physical object’s complex structure can be obtained, studied and analysed. A low-cost Structure from Motion (SfM) technique can be used to create 3D models using multiple 2D images from different viewpoints. A point cloud is a widely used 3D data form, which can be produced by depth sensors, such as LIDARs and RGB-D cameras. However, the cost of such scanners can be prohibitive, putting photogrammetry out of reach for many researchers and practitioners in the agriculture industry. We are developing a low-cost close-range photogrammetry rig that could be a beneficial tool for agronomists, plant scientists, and breeders. Our imaging system utilizes the Raspberry Pi to capture images with multiple cameras, and a commercial rotatory table to get images from different viewpoints. We discuss the development of extracting quantitative trait indices in wheat in order to automatically characterize planophile versus erectophile canopy architectures. Moving forward, we plan to use our photogrammetry rig for a variety of applications such as growth monitoring and extracting plant traits such as number of leaves, stem height, leaf length, leaf width, leaf area, and canopy volume. We also plan on developing bespoke, plug-and-play systems that are tailored to the specific needs of a researcher and can be operated with minimal expertise.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.014

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.100 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLeaf Properties and Growth MeasurementFrench-language works237,207