Evaluation of Inter-Row Sweeps with Different Working Widths
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
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 (F d ). 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 F d ), 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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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