MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2303013142 · doi:10.2166/ws.2016.031

Commercial greenhouse water demand sensitivity analysis: single crop case study

2016· article· en· W2303013142 on OpenAlexaff
Dean Clifford James Rice, Rupp Carriveau, David S.‐K. Ting

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology Water Supply · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicIrrigation Practices and Water Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouseSensitivity (control systems)ScheduleEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceAgricultural engineeringScale (ratio)Environmental economicsOperations researchEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today water distribution utilities are trying to improve operational efficiency through increased demand intelligence from their largest customers. Moving to prognostic operations allows utilities to optimally schedule and scale resources to meet demand more reliably and economically. Commercial greenhouses are large water consumers. In order to produce effective forecasting models for greenhouse water demand, the factors that drive demand must be enumerated and prioritized. In this study greenhouse water demand was modeled using artificial neural networks trained with a dataset containing eight input factors for a commercial greenhouse growing bell peppers. The dataset contained water usage, climatic and temporal data for the years 2012–2014. This model was then evaluated using the Extended Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test, a global sensitivity analysis, in order to determine the importance, or sensitivity, of each input factor. It was found that time of day, solar radiation, and outdoor temperature (°C) had the largest effects on the model output. These outputs could be used to contribute to the generation of a simplified demand-forecasting model.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & Technology Water SupplySame topicIrrigation Practices and Water ManagementFrench-language works237,207