MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405968971 · doi:10.3390/plants14010088

A Feasibility Study on Utilizing Remote Sensing Data to Monitor Grape Yield and Berry Composition for Selective Harvesting

2024· article· en· W4405968971 on OpenAlexafffund
Leeko Lee, Andrew G. Reynolds, Briann Dorin, Adam Shemrock

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsBerryVineyardWinemakingRemote sensingMultispectral imageVegetation (pathology)Yield (engineering)Environmental scienceTerroirGeographyHorticultureWineMedicineFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary purpose of this study was to improve our understanding of remote sensing technologies and their potential application in vineyards to monitor yields and fruit composition, which could then be used for selective harvesting and winemaking. For yield and berry composition data collection, representative vines from the vineyard block were selected and geolocated, and the same vines were surveyed for remote sensing data collection by the multispectral and thermal sensors in the RPAS in 2015 and 2016. The spectral reflectance data were further analyzed for vegetation indices to evaluate the correlation between the variables. Moran's global index and map analysis were used to determine spatial clustering patterns and correlations between variables. The results of this study indicated that remote sensing data in the form of vegetation indices from the RPAS were positively correlated with yield and berry weight across sites and years. There was a positive correlation between the thermal emission and berry pH, berry phenols, and anthocyanins in certain sites and years. Overall, remote sensing technology has the potential to monitor and predict grape quality and yield, but further research on the efficacy of this data is needed for selective harvesting and winemaking.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.106 · 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 designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207