Evaluation of Inter-Row Sweeps with Different Working Widths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Little information is available on the performance of inter-row sweeps. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of inter-row sweeps for mechanical weed control. Sweeps with different working widths (153, 280, and 330 mm) were tested at different working speeds (0.70, 1.53, and 2.22 m s-1) and a constant working depth (50 mm) in an indoor soil bin with a sandy loam soil. Measurements included soil disturbance characteristics: distance of soil throw (L), width of disturbed soil (W), mass of soil throw (M), height of soil ridge (H), and draft force (Fd). Results showed that L increased linearly with the working speed, but L was not affected by the working width of the sweeps. In contrast, W was slightly affected by the speed, but it was significantly increased if a wider sweep was used. Effects of working speed on M and H depended on the sweep width, and the smallest sweep traveling at 2.22 m s-1 resulted in the highest M and H. Draft force was higher for a wider sweep and a higher working speed. Considering the potential weeding efficiency (defined as the ratio of W and Fd), the width of sweep would not make any differences, and a lower working speed would result in better performance. Keywords: Draft force, Inter-row, Soil disturbance, Speed, Sweep, Weeding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".