MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392663033 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-22153

Spatial cross-validation of wheat yield estimations using remote sensing and machine learning

2024· preprint· en· W4392663033 on OpenAlexaff
Keltoum Khechba, Mariana Belgiu, Ahmed Laamrani, Qi Dong, Alfred Stein, Abdelghani Chehbouni

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYield (engineering)Remote sensingCross-validationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeographyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integration of Machine Learning (ML) with remote sensing data has been successfully used to create detailed agricultural yield maps at both local and global scales. Despite this advancement, a critical issue often overlooked is the presence of spatial autocorrelation in geospatial data used for training and validating ML models. Usually random cross-validation (CV) methods are employed that fail to account for this aspect. This study aimed to assess wheat yield estimations using both random and spatial CV. In contrast to random CV where the data is split randomly, spatial CV involves splitting the data based on spatial locations, to ensure that spatially close data points are grouped together, either entirely in the training or in the test set, but not both. Conducted in Northern Morocco during the 2020-2021 agricultural season, our research uses Sentinel 1 and Sentinel 2 satellite images as input variables as well as 1329 field data locations to estimate wheat yield. Three ML models were employed: Random Forest, XGBoost, and Multiple Linear Regression. Spatial CV was employed across varying spatial scales. The province represents predefined administrative division, while grid2 and grid1 are equally sized spatial blocks, with a spatial resolution of 20x20km and 10x10 km respectively. Our findings show that when estimating yield with Random CV, all models achieve higher accuracies (R² = 0.58 and RMSE = 840 kg ha-1 for the XGBoost model) as compared to the performance reported when using spatial CV. The10x10 km spatial CV led to the highest R² value equal to 0.23 and an RMSE value equal to 1140 kg ha-1 for the XGBoost model, followed by the 20x20 km grid-based strategy (R² = 0.11 and RMSE = 1227 kg ha-1 for the XGBoost model). Province-based spatial CV resulted in the lowest accuracy with an R² value equal to 0.032 and an RMSE value of 1282 kg ha-1. These results confirm that spatial CV is essential in preventing overoptimistic model performance. The study further highlights the importance of selecting an appropriate CV method to ensure realistic and reliable results in wheat yield predictions as increased accuracy can deviate from real-world conditions due to the effects of spatial autocorrelation.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing in Agriculture→French-language works237,207→