Performance Evaluation of Shovel Type Furrow Opener of a Seed cum Fertilizer Drill in Sandy Soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A shovel type furrow opener having optimized values of rake angle, wedge angle, boot geometry and the seed fertilizer tube spacing was evaluated against standard shovel type furrow opener (BIS)under controlled soil bin condition in sandy loam and loamy sand soils. The performance evaluation was made on the basis of draft requirement, soil cover, lateral and vertical seed scatter, lateral and vertical separations maintained between the seed and fertilizer placements and row roughness coefficient at a soil moisture of 10 per cent (db) and an operating depth and speed of 60 mm and 0.562 ms-1. respectively. The furrow openers require about 18 per cent less draft and created less soil disturbance in comparison to standard shovel type furrow opener. The seed-fertilizer distribution ability of the furrow opener was also found better than the standard-shovel type furrow opener as it placed the seed and fertilizer at a lateral and vertical separations of about 33 mm and 21 mm, respectively against a negligible vertical separation maintained by the BIS-shovel type furrow opener. The value of overall performance index of the furrow opener was also much higher than the standard -shovel type furrow opener.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".