MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1867283008 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v8n9p66

Effect of Tree Shade on Coffee Crop Production

2015· article· en· W1867283008 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Molla Mekonnen Alemu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWindbreakCoffea arabicaPruningAgroforestryCanopyMulchAgricultureYield (engineering)CoffeaShadingCropShade toleranceFellingArabica coffeeBiologyAgronomyHorticultureBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Ethiopia is the primary centre of origin and genetic diversity of Arabica coffee plant. Factors that affect the development of plants including coffee are climate, soil type, mulching, shade farming method used, pruning, etc. Amongst the various factors for having a good yield of coffee is growing of shade trees with the coffee plant which has a great contribution on both the life span of the coffee trees and its yield. Many small coffee farms usually grow different species of trees as an integral part of the production system (e.g. fruit and nut trees). This in turn have manifold ecological benefits by serving as windbreaks and shelterbelts, for aesthetic value in residential areas, and more importantly to protect the coffee plants from excessive sun and high temperatures. Dealing with the pruning waste and managing shade trees to maintain at its optimal shade levels (around 40-50%) could however look a lot of work. Traditionally, all coffee plants were shade grown and most varieties are naturally intolerant of direct sunlight, and desire a canopy of sun-filtering shade trees. This paper is aimed at exploring the benefits of tree shade on coffee life span and yield.</p>

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations53
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207