Linear Programming-Based Optimization of Synthetic Fertilizers Formulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linear least-cost programming was used in formulating three NPK labeled synthetic fertilizers. Linear Programming technique was selected to formulate the appropriate composition of the three synthetic fertilizers mixes with least costs of production and optimum potential to increase yield of crops and soil fertility. Data about fertilizers specifications and constraints imposed on the fertilizers components were collected from 30 synthetic fertilizers plants. Costs of ingredients used in fertilizers formulation were obtained from the prevailing market prices. The results of the study prevailed that the least cost synthetic fertilizer combinations of the three studied fertilizer mixes among many calculated combinations was 672 JDs for the first mix with NPK label of 20-20-20, 669 JDs for the second mix with NPK label of 15-30-15, and 754 JDs for the third mix with NPK label of 12-12-36. These all three costs are lower by nearly 5-10% than those imposed by the market. These results confirm the importance of using techniques such as LP to formulate least cost products in industries such as synthetic fertilizers industry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".