Evaluation of Openers for Seeding Meadow Brome Grass (Bromus riparius) Using Air Delivery Seeding Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is interest in Canada in seeding grass seed using air seeders and air drills that were originally designed for seeding cereals and oilseeds. These seeders use an air delivery system to move the seed from large grain tanks on the seeder to the cultivator furrow openers for seed placement in the ground. Various types of furrow openers (i.e. spoons or knives) were evaluated for their effectiveness in placing meadow brome grass seed (Bromus riparius [Rehmann]) in the ground. Knife openers provided the best seed emergence results. Seed brakes and variable air velocities were also evaluated as a means of preventing the seed from blowing out of the seed row when using high air velocities. The screen-type seed brakes were prone to plugging with the grass seed. Acceptable seeding results were achieved without seed brakes when used at low air velocities; however, at these lower air velocities, seed distribution may be less accurate. It was also shown that when monoammonium phosphate (11-51-0) was mixed with the meadow brome grass seed at 33 kg ha-1 as a means of preventing seed bridging in the delivery system, the seedling emergence counts were significantly less than applying the fertilizer at the point where the seed enters the openers.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".