MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170756812

MODELING OF THE PRESSURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP IN A LARGE CUBIC BALER

2013· article· en· W2170756812 on OpenAlexaff
S. Afzalinia, M. R. Roberge

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlungerStrawBulk densityMathematicsExponential functionAnimal scienceAgronomySoil scienceEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceComposite materialBiologyMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the course of this study, empirical models were developed for the pressure-density relationship in a large cubic baler for baling alfalfa and barley straw. Least squares regression analysis was employed to develop the empirical model and estimate the model coefficients by minimizing the summation of the squared differences between data resulting from the developed empirical model and the corresponding experimental data for a certain distance from the plunger. The effect of the flake size and load setting on the plunger pressure (pressure exerted on the bale via the plunger) as well as bale density were also determined for bailing alfalfa and barley straw. Results showed that the developed empirical model for either one of alfalfa or barley straw was a combination of a quadratic and an exponential equation which exhibited a good correlation with the experimental data (R 2 of 0.89 for alfalfa and R 2 of 0.94 for barley straw). Results also revealed that load setting significantly affected the plunger pressure and as well the bale density so that plunger pressure and bale density increased with increase in load setting (up to 70% for alfalfa and 100% for barley straw) in both of the forage materials. Flake size (position of the pre-compression sensitivity lever) had also a slight effect on the plunger pressure and on the bale density.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsFrench-language works237,207