RETRACTED: A deep learning approach based on graphs to detect plantation lines
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying plantation lines in aerial images of agricultural landscapes is re-quired for many automatic farming processes. Deep learning-based networks are among the most prominent methods to learn such patterns and extract this type of information from diverse imagery conditions. However, even state-of-the-art methods may stumble in complex plantation patterns. Here, we propose a deep learning approach based on graphs to detect plantation lines in UAV-based RGB imagery, presenting a challenging scenario containing spaced plants. The first module of our method extracts a feature map throughout the backbone, which consists of the initial layers of the VGG16. This feature map is used as an input to the Knowledge Estimation Module (KEM), organized in three concatenated branches for detecting 1) the plant positions, 2) the plantation lines, and 3) the displacement vectors between the plants. A graph modeling is applied considering each plant position on the image as vertices, and edges are formed between two vertices (i.e. plants). Finally, the edge is classified as pertaining to a certain plantation line based on three probabilities (higher than 0.5): i) in visual features obtained from the backbone; ii) a chance that the edge pixels belong to a line, from the KEM step; and iii) an alignment of the displacement vectors with the edge, also from the KEM step. Experiments were conducted initially in corn plantations with different growth stages and patterns with aerial RGB imagery to present the advantages of adopting each module. We assessed the generalization capability in the other two cultures (orange and eucalyptus) datasets. The proposed method was compared against state-of-the-art deep learning methods and achieved superior performance with a significant margin considering all three datasets. This approach is useful in extracting lines with spaced plantation patterns and could be implemented in scenarios where plantation gaps occur, generating lines with few-to-no interruptions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".