Methods of calculating growing degree-day based on LR assumption and daily extreme temperatures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing degree-day(GDD) is an important indicator for assessing regional heat resources and timing phenol-stage process,and correct GDD calculation is the basis of water and fertilizer management in agricultural production and accurate simulation and prediction of crop growth and development in crop models.In this paper,two daily average temperature methods of calculating GDD based on assumption of optimized response of growth and development to temperature(OR assumption) and daily extreme temperatures was reviewed,and a growing degree-hour(GDH) method of calculating growing degree-days was introduced.Hourly temperature was estimated by diurnal temperature curve simulated by sine wave based on extreme temperatures.Theoretical argument showed that daily average temperature method may result in an over-or under-estimated GDD,and daily extreme temperatures method may result in an over-estimated GDD;Case study showed the GDH method had the smallest error comparing with the true GDD in three methods.To calculate accurately GDD,GDH method is recommended strongly when GDD is calculated by extreme temperatures based on OR assumption.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it