MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392943133 · doi:10.1109/icmla58977.2023.00272

Corn Yield Prediction using Spatial-Temporal Data and Deep Learning

2023· article· en· W4392943133 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bhavesh Singh Bisht, Iluju Kiringa, Tet Yeap

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYield (engineering)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep learningData modelingMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Materials scienceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the global population grows rapidly, ensuring food security has become a challenge. Climate change on the other hand has led to increased frequency and intensity of weather conditions, posing significant risks to agriculture production. An accurate yield prediction system plays a crucial role in addressing the challenge by enabling effective resource allocation, optimizing agriculture practices, and reducing risk. By accurately estimating end-of-season yield in advance, farmers can take timely proactive measures for risk mitigation and yield improvement. Current approaches suffer from imprecision, an incapacity to capture intricate nonlinear connections and the challenge of accounting for spatial-temporal variations. The current work proposes an end-to-end framework using 3 dimensional CNN models and compares different strategies to improve prediction performance. The data was collected from farms located in Ottawa, Ontario, where predominantly corn (measured in bushels per acre, bu/ac) is cultivated from the 2021 growing season divided into Early, Mid, and Later stages. Two CNN models (a) 2D CNN and (b) 3D CNN were tested, where the widely used 2D CNN model was used as a baseline. The findings demonstrated that the 3D CNN model, which also incorporates temporal features(crop changes over time), outperformed the 2D CNN model, which exclusively focuses on spatial characteristics. Overall, the 3D CNN model with stacked Early and growing season images was able to achieve a Mean Absolute Percentage Error of 15.18% and a Root Mean Square Error of 17.63 bu/ac.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207