MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029668892 · doi:10.13031/2013.23510

Sensors for Grain Storage

2007· article· en· W2029668892 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sureshraja Neethirajan, Digvir S. Jayas

Bibliographic record

Venue2007 Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 17-20, 2007 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Supply Chain Traceability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsGrain qualityFood spoilageBinCombine harvesterEnvironmental scienceGrain sizeGrain dryingAgricultural engineeringMaterials scienceMetallurgyAgronomyEngineeringComposite materialMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post harvest stored grain losses remain a problem. Vigilant post-harvest grain management is the most cost-effective means of increasing the world's food supply. Spoilage of bulk-stored grain leads to decreased nutritional value and poses health hazards due to the formation of irritating volatile metabolites inside grain bins. Quality changes in the stored grain bulk can be identified by various odors as well as increase in carbon dioxide. This paper provides information and analysis about the potential of sensors for grain quality monitoring, a brief overview of the innovative research on the development of sensors and future perspectives. On the go grain quality monitoring gas sensors, electrostatic sensors for particle size measurement for grain dust, moisture, and acoustic sensors are identified as potential instruments to be employed inside the grain bin for monitoring the quality of grain and for increasing the shelf life of stored grain.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.006

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2007 Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 17-20, 2007Same topicFood Supply Chain TraceabilityFrench-language works237,207