Model 1.0 required fewer computer resources.

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Outcome: computer resourcese0
Direction: lesse0
Comparator: computer hardware requiremente0

Not reportedTaxonMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingValueQualifier

Verbatim

e0
“Model 1.0 requires less computer resources, and its computer hardware requirement is lower”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1408–1498

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 had the highest recall, 98.42%.
Method / resource Model 1.0 reached 97.27% mAP for excellent kernels only.
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-7b5292cbb3158a7da6b68a8be8c33e9a12aa39a460d986df91a451cbe9aa254f · schema claims-v0.9 · position 3 in the model’s answer