EFICIÊNCIA DE DEPOSIÇÃO DE PULVERIZAÇÃO EM VIDEIRA, COMPARANDO BICOS E PULVERIZADORES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estudou a deposição de agrotóxicos em videira, proporcionada por diferentes tipos de pulverizadores e de bicos de pulverização. Dois tipos de pulverizadores com ventilador com tomada de ar frontal (Airbus 200 e Airbus 500, fabricados pela Jacto) foram comparados com pulverizador do tipo carreta com ventilador tradicional. O pulverizador tradicional foi regulado com bicos Yamaho D3 e os dois outros pulverizadores com bicos JA-1 ou API-110-015. Para avaliar a eficiência de deposição dos pulverizadores utilizou-se Rodamina B como traçador na calda de pulverização. O equipamento Jacto Airbus 500, equipado com 10 bicos JA-1, regulado para aplicar 246 L/ha foi o mais eficiente, depositando 82% de produto na planta, com perdas de 8% para o solo e 10% por evaporação ou deriva. THE VINEYARD SPRAYING DEPOSITION EFFICIENCY, COMPARING NOZZLES AND SPRAYERS Abstract The deposition of pesticides in vineyard given by different types of sprayers and nozzles was studied. Two types of sprayers with frontal air aspiration fan (Airbus 200 and Airbus 500, manufactured by Jacto) were compared with traditional ventilation sprayers. The traditional spray was regulated with JA-1 or API-110-015 nozzles. In order to evaluate the sprayers deposition efficiency, Rodamine B was used as tracer. The equipment Jacto Airbus 500, equipped with 10 nozzles JA-1, regulated to apply 246 L/ha was the most effective, depositing 82% of product in the plant, with 8% losses to the soil and 10% by evaporation or drift.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".