MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393279850 · doi:10.3390/crops4020009

Analyzing Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Growth Pattern Using High Spatial Resolution Images: A Case Study at Lakehead University Agriculture Research Station, Thunder Bay, Canada

2024· article· en· W4393279850 on OpenAlexafffundabout
María V. Brenes Fuentes, Muditha K. Heenkenda, T. S. Sahota, Laura Segura Serrano

Bibliographic record

VenueCrops · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaLakehead University
KeywordsThunderBayAgricultureWinter wheatGeographyHigh resolutionEnvironmental scienceOceanographyPhysical geographyAgronomyRemote sensingBiologyGeologyMeteorologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remote sensing technology currently facilitates the monitoring of crop development, enabling detailed analysis and monitoring throughout the crop’s growing stages. This research analyzed the winter wheat growth dynamics of experimental plots at the Lakehead University Agricultural Research Station, Thunder Bay, Canada using high spatial and temporal resolution remote sensing images. The spectral signatures for five growing stages were prepared. NIR reflectance increased during the growing stages and decreased at the senescence, indicating healthy vegetation. The space–time cube provided valuable insight into how canopy height changed over time. The effect of nitrogen treatments on wheat did not directly influence the plant count (spring/autumn), and height and volume at maturity. However, the green and dry weights were different at several treatments. Winter wheat yield was predicted using the XGBoost algorithm, and moderate results were obtained. The study explored different techniques for analyzing winter wheat growth dynamics and identified their usefulness in smart agriculture.

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 score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCropsSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207