MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316810515 · doi:10.7451/cbe.2014.56.2.1

Simulation of Draft Forces of a Sweep in a Loamy Sand Soil Using the Discrete Element Method

2014· article· en· W2316810515 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Jay Mak, Ying Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Biosystems Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLoamDiscrete element methodStiffnessHullGeotechnical engineeringParticle (ecology)Soil scienceSoil waterGeologyEnvironmental scienceMechanicsEngineeringStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Draft force is an important performance indicator of a soil-engaging tool as it affects the power requirement of the tool. In this study, draft forces of a sweep were measured in a loamy sand soil under different soil cutting depths and tool travel speeds. The measurements served the evaluation of a model developed using the Discrete Element Method (DEM) to simulate the soil cutting process of the sweep. In the model, soil particles were defined as spherical particles with bonds between particles to reflect the cohesive behaviour of agricultural soil. The model parameter, particle stiffness, was calibrated through comparing the simulated draft forces of the sweep with those predicted from the Universal Earthmoving Equation. The calibrated particle stiffness was 3x103 N/m for the loamy sand soil. The calibrated model was evaluated against measured draft forces. The simulated draft forces agreed well with the measured ones with a correlation coefficient of 0.8.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Biosystems EngineeringSame topicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsFrench-language works237,207