A Feasibility Study on Utilizing Remote Sensing Data to Monitor Grape Yield and Berry Composition for Selective Harvesting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".