View: List Claim type Research area Organism Taxon as written Decade Paper Association observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Tangerine size did not affect segmentation volume estimation accuracy .
Outcomeaccuracy of volume estimation by segmentation method e0 Qualifiersize of tangerines e0 Not reported Organ / stage
Verbatim
e0 “the size of tangerines has no effect on the accuracy of volume estimation by segmentation method. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 607–704 Other claims from this paper (2) Method / resource observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Comparable accuracy of yield estimation was achieved with GS NDVI and UAV NDVI.
Outcomeaccuracy of yield estimation e5 Verbatim
e0 “to estimate wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) yield and protein ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 471–530 e5 “Comparable accuracy of yield estimation was achieved with GS NDVI and UAV NDVI ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1456–1534 Other claims from this paper (7) Method / resource observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Adding color and texture to CWT spectra did not significantly improve estimation accuracy .
Outcomeestimation accuracy e0 Directioncannot significantly improve e0 Comparator“CWT spectra + color + texture” e0 Verbatim
e0 ““CWT spectra + color + texture” cannot significantly improve the estimation accuracy of the model ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1887–1984 t0 “Cotton ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–47 Other claims from this paper (5) Method / resource observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
The MultiCam system achieved accuracy in fruit diameter estimation comparable to the handheld approach.
Outcomeaccuracy in fruit diameter estimation e2 Comparatorhandheld approach e2 Verbatim
e0 “scan apple trees in an experimental orchard ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 711–754 e2 “the system achieved comparable accuracy in fruit diameter estimation to the handheld approach ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1164–1257 Other claims from this paper (4) Observation observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
Multivariate regression models based on a single image type did not enhance LAI estimation accuracy .
Outcomeestimation accuracy e1 Directiondid not enhance e1 Verbatim
t0 “sweet potato ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 95–107 e1 “the multivariate regression models based on a single image type did not enhance estimation accuracy ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1458–1557 Other claims from this paper (6) Association observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Input groups did not significantly affect corn grain moisture estimation accuracy .
OutcomeCGM estimation accuracy e0 Not reported Direction
Verbatim
e0 “The CGM estimation accuracy was impacted by the ML model and train-test data split ratio. However, the impact was not significant for the input groups. ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1786–1937 t0 “Corn Grain Moisture ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–31 Other claims from this paper (9) Method / resource observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
ASRI (ANDI) had similar LCC estimation accuracy to the range-ASRIs or range-ANDIs.
OutcomeLCC estimation accuracy e3 Comparatorrange-ASRIs or range-ANDIs e3 Verbatim
e3 “We also found the ASRI (ANDI) had similar LCC estimation accuracy as the range-ASRIs or range-ANDIs ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 989–1088 Other claims from this paper (4) Method / resource observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Multi-angle and single-camera vertical imaging did not differ significantly in rapeseed biomass estimation accuracy .
Outcomeaccuracy of rapeseed biomass estimation e0 Directionno significant difference e0 Comparatorsingle-camera vertical imaging e0 Verbatim
e0 “There was no significant difference in the accuracy of rapeseed biomass estimation between multi-angle imaging and single-camera vertical imaging ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1701–1846 Other claims from this paper (6) Observation observed original result no effect measured Claim · model-written summary
The accuracy of the berry-number estimation models did not depend on increasing the number of canopy features used.
Outcomeaccuracy of the estimation models e0 Qualifierincreasing the number of vineyard canopy features used e0 Not reported Direction
Verbatim
t0 “grapevine ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 31–40 e0 “The accuracy of the estimation models did not depend on increasing the number of vineyard canopy features used ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1048–1158 Other claims from this paper (2) Method / resource observed original result no effect not significant (as stated) measured Claim · model-written summary
Dual-angle images did not significantly improve LNA and PNA estimation accuracy over single-angle images.
Outcomeestimation accuracy for LNA and PNA e0 Directiondid not significantly increase e0 Comparatorsingle-angle images e0 Verbatim
e0 “the use of dual-angle images did not significantly increase the estimation accuracy for LNA and PNA compared to the use of single-angle images ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1734–1876 t0 “Winter Wheat ”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 43–55 Other claims from this paper (4) Lexical search (BM25). All words must match; if nothing does, any word. Organism names also match every spelling of the same organism. No semantic search yet.