MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1753197017

La réflectométrie dans le domaine temporel : une technique d'optimisation de l'irrigation et de réduction du lessivage en pépinières forestières au Québec

2002· article· fr· W1753197017 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammed S. Lamhamedi, Mario Renaud, Hank A. Margolis

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers Agricultures · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInvertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryHumanitiesPolitical scienceGeographyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette synthese met l'accent sur l'utilisation de la reflectometrie dans le domaine temporel (RDT) a l'echelle operationnelle dans les pepinieres forestieres hors sol du Quebec pour controler et optimiser l'irrigation, et reduire le lessivage des elements mineraux. Cette approche facilite la prise de decision en temps reel et la gestion de l'irrigation par le pepinieriste. L'utilisation du MP-917 dote d'une sonde a double diode est une technique rapide, souple d'emploi et tres precise. Son emploi en fonction des stades de croissance permet une diminution des couts de gestion des cultures (eau, fertilisants, entretien, main-d'œuvre, energie, etc.), une amelioration de la qualite des plants, tout en diminuant significativement le lessivage des elements mineraux et l'utilisation des pesticides, et par consequent, en assurant une protection accrue de l'environnement. L'atout majeur de cette approche de gestion de l'irrigation est son integration aisee dans les nouvelles normes (standard international ISO 14000) qui portent sur les systemes de gestion environnementale. Elle pourra facilement etre transposee dans les pepinieres situees dans les zones semi-arides et arides ou la maitrise de la gestion de l'eau represente un enjeu capital en termes de developpement durable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers AgriculturesSame topicInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyFrench-language works237,207