MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401210438 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2024.3436605

Cross-Scale Feature Enhancement for Cotton Seedling Detection in UAV Images

2024· article· en· W4401210438 on OpenAlexaff
Chunyan Ke, Jianjun Ni, Yonghao Zhao, Simon X. Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersJiangsu Provincial Key Research and Development ProgramNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Scale (ratio)Remote sensingSeedlingComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionEnvironmental scienceGeologyGeographyAgronomyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep-learning-based object detection methods have achieved significant results in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) crop seedling image detection. However, when there are differences in the shape characteristics and sizes of seedlings within datasets, the performance of the detector tends to decrease. Existing methods typically rely on specific datasets, ignoring the problem of feature disparities caused by complex and variable field environments. In this letter, a cotton seedling detection framework based on cross-scale feature enhancement (CFE) is presented. CFE reconstructs features through multilevel feature aggregation (MFA) and enhances the reconstructed feature layers using global contextual dependencies extracted by transformer encoder, enabling the sharing of long-range dependency information across different feature spaces. Furthermore, a fuzzy dynamic weighted loss (FDWLoss) strategy is proposed to balance the targets for difficult-to-identify in the training process. Experimental results demonstrate a significant improvement in detection performance and generalization ability on six datasets of the proposed model, which is particularly suitable for cotton seedling detection in various field environments.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207