MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038855350 · doi:10.5539/jas.v5n8p57

Improved Method for Estimating Soil Moisture Deficit in Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) Areas With Limited Climatic Data

2013· article· en· W2038855350 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Claude Bakoumé, Norhazela Shahbudin, Shahrakbah Yacob, See Siang Cheah, Mohamad Ali Thambi Nazeeb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicOil Palm Production and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvapotranspirationElaeis guineensisWater contentEnvironmental scienceDeficit irrigationIrrigationPalm oilSoil waterMoistureWater balanceWater useHydrology (agriculture)AgronomySoil scienceAgroforestryIrrigation managementGeographyBiologyEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Widespread water deficit is expected to depress growth and yields of oil palms, which sustain daily losses of water through evapotranspiration of 4-5 mm. While accurate predictions for soil moisture deficit are essential for supplying water to plants through irrigation when rainfall is insufficient, soil moisture deficit is difficult to assess. In Malaysia (as in other oil palm-growing countries) rainfall and rain days are the sole climatic parameters recorded; this limited information is insufficient for reliable estimates of water deficit. This paper reports the adoption of a new method of prediction for soil moisture deficit that takes into account the effective rainfall, evapotranspiration, and a correction factor for the water-holding capacity of the soil. Monthly effective rainfall varied from 11% of gross rainfall to 84%. The number of months with soil water deficit varied from 2 to 12 (mean = 9). Values of water deficit obtained were close to those calculated using the Penman equation, thus validating this method of prediction of water deficit.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicOil Palm Production and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207