Claim · model-written summary
Damage detection rates at the bottom of the grain collection box differed from actual damage rates by only 0.42% under full coverage.
Verbatim
t0“maize ear harvesters”
e0“The damage detection rates for the bottom of the grain collection box differed from the actual damage rates by only 0.31% under partial coverage and 0.42% under full coverage”
Title
Jun Fu; Chengyuan Zhang; Qiankun Fu; et al. Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture 2026. doi:10.1016/j.aiia.2026.02.005
Other claims from this paper (3)
- Method / resource FIBA U-Net achieved the best performance across all evaluation metrics when compared with Eff U-Net, ResNeSt50, ConvNeXt and ViT for segmenting maize ear damage.
- Method / resource The method reached an overall accuracy of up to 98.61% in field tests.
- Method / resource Damage detection rates at the bottom of the grain collection box differed from actual damage rates by only 0.31% under partial coverage.