ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND ITS TOOLS IN PEST CONTROL FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION: A REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its tools are being widely used worldwide. In the area of agriculture, AI is being widely studied and expanding. The use of AI in agriculture is being widely studied and expanding from pre-harvest to post-harvest. The increase in world population has triggered the need to increase food production. This need has triggered a search for solutions that promote increased food production and quality. One way to increase food production and quality is pest control. AI and its tools have proven to be a growing and rising solution in controlling and combating pests. This research focuses on reviewing and demonstrating the advances in combating and controlling pests using AI tools and images. It stands out: the classification of pests; insect identification; use and capture of Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) footage; using Deep Learning (DL) and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN). A search engine was applied to 5 databases. Cutting criteria were applied in 3 stages, and there were 71 papers at the end. The 71 went through 3 quality assessment questions, leaving 47 works for final analysis. This study demonstrated that the DL and the CNN tool using real images have the potential for insect control and combat solutions. Another tool in recent studies associated with CNN is the attention mechanism, improving pest identification results. Identification of insects through leaf images using CNN requires.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".