MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017176520 · doi:10.13031/2013.20584

Effect of Density, Cover, Depth, and Storage Time on Dry Matter Loss of Corn Silage

2006· article· en· W2017176520 on OpenAlexfundno aff
P. Savoie, L. D'Amours, A. Amyot, Robert J. Theriault

Bibliographic record

Venue2006 Portland, Oregon, July 9-12, 2006 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNovalait
KeywordsSiloInformation siloSilageAnimal scienceDry matterCompactionBulk densityMaterials scienceChemistryComposite materialEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceAgronomyBiologySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whole-plant corn was harvested at 37% dry matter (DM), finely chopped (10 mmgeometric mean length) and ensiled in 54 mini-silos of 100 mm diameter by 600 mm height. Siloswere filled at three controlled densities (160, 240, and 320 kg DM/m), either covered with a nearlyperfect seal or left uncovered, opened after 1, 2, and 6 months and replicated three times. Withineach silo, two 100-mm diameter nylon screens were placed at 200 and 400 mm from the bottomwhile filling to analyze DM loss for three separate 200 mm vertical segments. The well-sealed silosdid not exhibit any difference in DM loss as a function of density, depth or time (overall average of0.9% DM loss). The uncovered silos exhibited very sharp differences (overall average of 17.0% DMloss); DM loss was 25.9, 15.9, and 9.1% for densities of 160, 240, and 320 kg DM/m, respectively.In the uncovered silos, DM loss was 8.9, 15.5, and 26.4% after 1, 2, and 6 months, respectively. DMloss was 36.1, 12.8, and 2.0% in the first segment (0-200 mm from surface), the second segment(200 to 400 mm), and the third segment (400 to 600 mm), respectively. These results imply thatintense compaction of bunker silos (e.g. increasing density from 160 to 320 kg DM/m) will reduceDM loss especially in uncovered silos and in the top 0.4 m layer. A well sealed bunker silo isexpected to have minimal DM loss, independently of density, at a rate of about 0.5% per month.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2006 Portland, Oregon, July 9-12, 2006Same topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207