Research on Crop Planning Based on Data Mining and Genetic Algorithms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data mining techniques can be employed to extract information that is not immediately apparent from large amounts of data, and to construct predictive models based on this extracted information. These models can then be used as a basis for decision-making. In order to expand the scope of its application, this paper combines data mining with genetic algorithms and orthogonal experiments and applies it to the optimization of planting decisions. In particular, this study initially gathered and structured data on planting conditions, crop sales, per-mu yields, planting costs, and selling prices in a village through data mining techniques and subsequently analyzed the intrinsic relationships between these variables. On this basis, this paper constructs a planning function with the goal of maximizing profits and uses genetic algorithms to solve optimization problems. Overall, this study has successfully applied data mining techniques to practical planting decision-making problems, which not only has strong practicality, but also provides a reference for solving other complex planning problems. In the future, further exploration of the integration of additional optimization algorithms into the data-driven decision-making analysis framework may yield more comprehensive solutions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it