MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409204269 · doi:10.1016/j.atech.2025.100934

Improved crop row detection by employing attention-based vision transformers and convolutional neural networks with integrated depth modeling for precise spatial accuracy

2025· article· en· W4409204269 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hassan Afzaal, Derek Rude, Aitazaz A. Farooque, Gurjit S. Randhawa, Arnold W. Schuman, Nicholas Krouglicof

Bibliographic record

VenueSmart Agricultural Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphPlant Biotechnology InstituteUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersMitacs
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceTransformerPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precision agriculture has emerged as a revolutionary technology for tackling global food security issues by optimizing crop yield and resource management. Incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) within agricultural practices has fundamentally transformed the discipline by facilitating sophisticated data analysis, predictive modeling, and automation. This research presents a novel framework that integrates deep learning, precision agriculture, and depth modeling to detect crop rows and spatial information accurately. The proposed framework employs the latest attention and convolution-based encoders, such as ConvFormer, CAFormer, Swin Transformer, and ConvNextV2, in precisely identifying crop rows across varied and challenging agricultural environments. The binary segmentation models were trained using a high-resolution soybean crop dataset (733 images), which consisted of data from fifteen distinct locations in Canada, collected during different growth phases. LabelMe and albumentation tools were used to generate a segmentation dataset, followed by data augmentation techniques to enhance data generalization and robustness. With training (∼70 %, 513 images), validation (∼15 %, 109 images), and test (∼15 %, 111 images) splits, the models learned to differentiate crop rows from background noise, achieving notable accuracy across multiple metrics, including Precision, Recall, F1 Score, and Dice Score. An essential element of this pipeline is incorporating the Depth Pro model for precise computation of Ground Sampling Distance (GSD) by estimating images' absolute height and depth maps. The depth maps were analyzed to examine GSD variability across fifteen clusters of field images, revealing a spectrum of GSD values ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 mm/pixel for most clusters. The proposed model demonstrates superior performance in crop row segmentation tasks, achieving an F1 Score of 0.8012, Precision of 0.8512, Recall of 0.7584, and Accuracy of 0.8477 on the validation set. In comparative analysis with state-of-the-art (SOTA) models, ConvFormer outperformed alternatives such as ConvNextv2, CAFormer, and Swin S3 across multiple metrics. Notably, ConvFormer achieves a higher balance of precision and recall than ResNet models, which exhibit lower metrics (e.g., F1 Score of 0.7307 and Recall of 0.6551), underscoring its effectiveness in complex agricultural scenarios. Furthermore, classic machine vision methods were tested for extracting line information from binary segmentation masks, which can be useful for plant analytics, autonomous driving, and other various applications. The proposed workflow offers a robust solution for automating field operations, optimizing resource efficiency, and improving crop productivity.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmart Agricultural TechnologySame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207