MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409109635 · doi:10.14746/quageo-2025-0008

Application maps in precision agriculture – grassland production management in Poland

2025· article· en· W4409109635 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Markowska, Katarzyna Dąbrowska‐Zielińska, Konrad Wróblewski, Michał Wyczałek-Jagiełło, Dariusz Ziółkowski, P. Goliński

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaestiones Geographicae · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsCentre de Géomatique du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrasslandAgricultureProduction (economics)GeographyPrecision agricultureAgroforestryAgricultural managementEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyEcologyBiologyArchaeologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the topic of the use of application maps in precision agriculture (PA), particularly in the context of grassland management, which accounts for over 21% of utilised agricultural area (UAA) in Poland. New technological developments in the area of smart agriculture (Precision Agriculture, Agriculture 4.0), in terms of sensor technology and information processing, are creating a wide range of data acquisition opportunities to document biological production processes with both high temporal and spatial resolution. That information can be used to rationalise production processes and reduce trade-offs between different environmental services. The technologies that support this kind of research are analyses using satellite imagery, and map-based applications like the system developed in the GRASSAT project are discussed in detail in this article. The developed application provides farmers with information on events using free data from the Copernicus Programme (Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2, ERA5-Land reanalyses). Remote sensing indices, such as the Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Leaf Area Index (LAI), and fresh biomass production volumes, are calculated to show the condition of the green vegetation in the grassland plots. Meteorological risks, such as field freezing, are also presented. The GRASSAT application is available in both desktop and mobile versions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaestiones GeographicaeSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207