A One-Dimensional Light Detection and Ranging Array Scanner for Mapping Turfgrass Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The turfgrass industry supports golf courses, sports fields, and the landscaping and lawn care industries worldwide. Identifying the problem spots in turfgrass is crucial for targeted remediation for turfgrass treatment. There have been attempts to create vehicle- or drone-based scanners to predict turfgrass quality; however, these methods often have issues associated with high costs and/or a lack of accuracy due to using colour rather than grass height (R2 = 0.30 to 0.90). The new vehicle-mounted turfgrass scanner system developed in this study allows for faster data collection and a more accurate representation of turfgrass quality compared to currently available methods while being affordable and reliable. The Gryphon Turf Canopy Scanner (GTCS), a low-cost one-dimensional LiDAR array, was used to scan turfgrass and provide information about grass height, density, and homogeneity. Tests were carried out over three months in 2021, with ground-truthing taken during the same period. When utilizing non-linear regression, the system could predict the percent bare of a field (R2 = 0.47, root mean square error < 0.5 mm) with an increase in accuracy of 8% compared to the random forest metric. The potential environmental impact of this technology is vast, as a more targeted approach to remediation would reduce water, fertilizer, and herbicide usage.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".