Farm-level profitability analysis of alternative tillage systems on clay soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crop yields, production costs, and net returns for seven alternative conservation tillage (including five reduced tillage and two no-till) treatments were compared with a conventional tillage (CT) treatment for a corn (Zea mays L.) – soybean (Glycine max L. Merr) rotation for two clay soils in southwestern Ontario. There was no significant difference in corn and soybean yields between the CT and the conservation tillage systems at either location, although actual yields tended to be highest for CT management. Tillage treatments that used a common set of machinery for corn and soybean production generated savings in annual machinery costs. Variable costs were lowest for the reduced-tillage treatments and highest for the two no-till treatments due to higher equipment expenditures and additional herbicide requirements. For a given location, there was often no significant difference in net returns between CT and the conservation tillage treatments, although average net returns for the corn–soybean cropping systems tended to be highest for CT and lowest for no-till. Key words: Net returns analysis, conservation tillage systems, clay soils, corn, soybeans
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".