MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403905923 · doi:10.59934/jaiea.v4i1.670

Classification of Tile Productivity Data Based on Tile Type Using Random Forest Algorithm in Langkat Regency

2024· article· en· W4403905923 on OpenAlexaff
Relita Buaton, Muammar Khadapi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining and Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTileProductivityRandom forestType (biology)Computer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceGeographyArchaeologyGeologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to classify data on the productivity of census in Langkat Regency based on the type of census by using the Random Forest algorithm. Ubinan is a method used to measure the productivity of food crops, and in this study, the data was processed with various variables such as planting area, type of fertilizer, type of pesticide, and production volume. The Random Forest algorithm was used to build a classification model that could predict the productivity of the tares with very high accuracy, reaching 99.58% in the training stage. The model categorizes the productivity of the samples into several levels, namely Very Low, Low, Medium, High, and Very High. The implementation of this system is also equipped with a MATLAB GUI interface, which makes it easier for users to train and test data efficiently. With this system, users can see the prediction results through intuitive visualization. This research is expected to help farmers and policy makers in improving agricultural productivity through data-based analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA)Same topicData Mining and Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207