MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1908928770 · doi:10.1139/l11-071

Effectiveness of using palm fronds in reducing water evaporation

2011· article· en· W1908928770 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saleh A. Al-Hassoun, Abdulmohsen A. Al-Shaikh, Abdullah M. Al-Rehaili, Mohammed Misbahuddin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicIrrigation Practices and Water Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrondPhoenix dactyliferaEnvironmental scienceEvaporationPalmWater resourcesAgricultureWater qualityPuddlingWater useEnvironmental engineeringAgronomyGeographyBotanyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the major problems in water resource planning and management is controlling of high evaporation from reservoirs, especially in arid countries such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Evaporation reduction can help in increasing water saving and thus reducing stress on water demand. Many types of water covers are internationally used to reduce evaporation from open water surfaces. Due to the large number of date palm trees in the Kingdom, a massive waste from these trees is disposed annually. Palm leaves as an agricultural waste can be converted to fronds and then used as a floating cover on the water surface to reduce evaporation. This paper presents feasibility results of testing palm fronds as covers in reducing evaporation from open reservoirs. Three pools were constructed at a selected site at King Saud University, Riyadh to prove the effectiveness of the proposed fronds. Data collected from the study site showed that evaporation reduction from the fully covered pool was about 55%, while that from the half covered pool was about 26%. Water quality analysis showed that the fronds have no serious effect on water quality. These results confirm the effectiveness of the fronds in evaporation reduction with no harmful effects on water quality.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicIrrigation Practices and Water ManagementFrench-language works237,207