MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145219211

Harvesting natural willow rings with a bio-baler around Saskatchewan prairie marshes

2010· article· en· W2145219211 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philippe Savoie, Frédéric Lavoie, L. D'Amours, William Schroeder And John Kort

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarshBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceWillowWetlandForestryAgronomyAgroforestryVegetation (pathology)GeographyEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several grass and woody crops grow naturally around potholes, marshes and sloughs across the Canadian Prairies. Thisvegetation serves as a valuable habitat for wildlife, but canbecome invasive on agricultural land and a source of wild fires.This paper presents an innovative harvesting method that canrejuvenate the vegetation, while providing a useful biomass. Theprototype, based on a modified round baler and called a €˜€˜biobaler'',was used in Saskatchewan to harvest natural willowrings around marshes. It cut, shredded and baled the woodycrop in a single pass. Harvestrat es averaged 3.5 and 6.6t/h [fresh weight (FW)] on two sites of different brush density[11 and 43 t/ha of dry matter (DM), respectively]. Round baleswere typically 1.22 m wide by 1.35 m diameter they weighed onaverage 251 and 347 kg F at each site (density of 144 and 199kg FW/m3). Moisture content of harvested crop averaged 41%. The bio-baler recovered 62% of biomass (7 and 27 tDM/ha,respectively). The technology could be used to manage naturallygrowing woody shrubs, while collecting a currently neglected source of biomass.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207