MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2523889172

Recent situation of the small fruit industry in Poland

2015· article· en· W2523889172 on OpenAlexaff
S. Pluta

Bibliographic record

VenueAgrotechnology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTillagePenetrometerGeotechnical engineeringSoil scienceEnvironmental scienceSoil structureSoil testGeologySoil water
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

S loosening is a very important performance indicator forsub-soiling tools. In this study, soil loosening effects from a ripper (a sub-soiling tool) was investigated through numerical modeling. To assist the model development, tests of the ripper were performed in a field with a clay soil texture. In the tests, the ripper was operated at a tillage depth of 300 mm and travel speed of 3 km/h. Before testing, soil cone indices of the undisturbed field were measured using a cone penetrometer; after testing, soil cone indices of the disturbed soil resulting from the ripper passage were measured. A soil-ripper model was developed to simulate the field operation of the ripperand its interaction with soil using the discrete element method (DEM). The model was able to predict soil swell factor which is commonly used to evaluate the extent of soil loosening by a tillage tool. The model ripper was 1:1 scale representation of ripper used in the field tests, and the spherical model soil particles had diameters varying from 3 to 30 mm. The soil-ripper model was calibrated and validated through comparing soil cone indices measured in the field and thoseobtained through virtual penetration tests performed to the assembly of the model particles. The validated soilripper model was used to further investigate soil swell factor as affected by the ripper working depths under differentinitial soil porosities.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.209
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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgrotechnologySame topicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsFrench-language works237,207