MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909406624 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n2p25

Performance Assessment of a Variable-Rate Fertilizer Applicator

2019· article· en· W2909406624 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ruixiu Sui

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSprayerFertilizerRowEnvironmental scienceSignificant differenceVolumetric flow rateMathematicsStatisticsComputer scienceEngineeringAgronomyMechanical engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to test the performance of a Field-IQ sprayer control system which was interfaced with a John Deere liquid fertilizer applicator. The sprayer control system includes Case IH FM-1000 display integrated with DGPS, Field-IQ spray control with full harness, flowmeter and auto-range valve, and the pump. Tap water was used to simulate the UAN 32% nitrogen fertilizer solution in the test. A total of 120 samples from 8 rows of the applicator in 5 application rates (34, 67, 101, 135, and 168 kg/ha) were collected, and the data were analyzed for application uniformity and application rate accuracy of the system. Results showed the greatest variation from the application rate baseline among the rows was 10.1% and occurred at a swath-end row with the lowest application rate of 34 kg/ha. The rows in the middle section of the swath had the lower variation than the rows at the two swath-ends. The application uniformity increased as the application rate increased. The absolute error of application rate ranged from 1.3% to 6.5% with an average of 3.76%. There was no significant difference between the selected application rate and actual application rate (p > 0.8686).

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsFrench-language works237,207