A Review of Machine Learning Techniques in Agroclimatic Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interplay of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) within the agroclimatic domain is pivotal for addressing the multifaceted challenges posed by climate change on agriculture. This paper embarks on a systematic review to dissect the current utilization of ML and DL in agricultural research, with a pronounced emphasis on agroclimatic impacts and adaptation strategies. Our investigation reveals a dominant reliance on conventional ML models and uncovers a critical gap in the documentation of methodologies. This constrains the replicability, scalability, and adaptability of these technologies in agroclimatic research. In response to these challenges, we advocate for a strategic pivot toward Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) frameworks. AutoML not only simplifies and standardizes the model development process but also democratizes ML expertise, thereby catalyzing the advancement in agroclimatic research. The incorporation of AutoML stands to significantly enhance research scalability, adaptability, and overall performance, ushering in a new era of innovation in agricultural practices tailored to mitigate and adapt to climate change. This paper underscores the untapped potential of AutoML in revolutionizing agroclimatic research, propelling forward the development of sustainable and efficient agricultural solutions that are responsive to the evolving climate dynamics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".