Method / resourcemodel-written summary

Model 1.0 had the highest recall, 98.42%.

A claim from Precise Selection and Visualization of Maize Kernels Based on Electromagnetic Vibration and Deep Learning · 2020

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Model 1.0 had the highest recall, 98.42%.

Outcome: average recall ratee0
Direction: higheste0
Value: 98.42%e0
Comparator: four modelse0

Not reportedTaxonMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingQualifier

Verbatim

e0
“Model 1.0 had the highest average recall rate of 98.42% among the four models”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1154–1231

Title

Precise Selection and Visualization of Maize Kernels Based on Electromagnetic Vibration and Deep Learning

Chengshun Zhao; Longzhe Quan; Hailong Li; et al. Transactions of the ASABE 2020. doi:10.13031/trans.13389

Other claims from this paper (8)

Method / resource Model 1.0 reached 97.27% mAP for excellent kernels only.
Method / resource Model 1.0 required fewer computer resources.
Method / resource Model 2.0 precision exceeded Faster R-CNN by 3.73%.
Method / resource Model 2.0 recall exceeded Faster R-CNN by 3.55%.
Method / resource Model 2.0 F1 exceeded Faster R-CNN by 3.79%.
Method / resource Model 2.0 false positive rate was reduced by 1.31% versus Faster R-CNN.
Method / resource Model 2.0 had the best overall performance among three variants.
Method / resource Moderate model size gave the best kernel selection.

Record rev-364a6caecb33c7e7000acd81af758fce780b20f4da451c760266f5baac14d850 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer