MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392162769 · doi:10.3390/agronomy14030452

Achieving the Rewards of Smart Agriculture

2024· article· en· W4392162769 on OpenAlexaff
Jian Zhang, Dawn E. Trautman, Yingnan Liu, Chunguang Bi, Wei Chen, Lijun Ou, Randy Goebel

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureBusinessAgricultural economicsAgricultural engineeringEnvironmental planningAgroforestryEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEnvironmental scienceEconomicsEngineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From connected sensors in soils, on animals or crops, and on drones, to various software and services that are available, “smart” technologies are changing the way farming is carried out. These technologies allow producers to look beyond what the eye can see by collecting non-traditional data and then using analytics tools to improve both food sustainability and profitability. “Smart Agriculture/farming” (SA) or “Digital Agriculture” (DA), often used interchangeably, refer to precision agriculture that is thus connected in a network of sensing and acting. It is a concept that employs modern information technologies, precision climate information, and crop/livestock developmental information to connect production variables to increase the quantity and quality of agricultural and food products. This is achieved by measuring and analyzing variables accurately, feeding the information into the cloud from edge devices, extracting trends from the various data, and subsequently providing information back to the producer in a timely manner. Smart agriculture covers many disciplines, including biology, mechanical engineering, automation, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and information technology-digital platforms. Minimum standards have been proposed for stakeholders with the aim to move toward this highly anticipated and ever-changing revolution. These foundational standards encompass the following general categories, including precise articulation of objectives, and baseline standards for the Internet of Things (IoT), including network infrastructure (e.g., stable 4G or 5G networks or a wireless local area network (WLAN) are available to end users). To sum up, SA aims to improve production efficiency, enhance the quality and quantity of agricultural products, reduce costs, and improve the environmental footprint of the industry. SA’s ecosystem should be industry self-governed and collaboratively financed. SA stakeholders and end-users’ facilities should meet standard equipment requirements, such as sensor accuracy, end data collectors, relevant industry compliant software, and trusted data analytics. The SA user is willing to be part of the SA ecosystem. This short perspective aims to summarize digital/smart agriculture concept in plain language.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgronomySame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207