Maintenance of the Economic Performance of Eucalyptus in Competition With Weeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the growth of the hybrid clone Eucalyptus grandis × Eucalyptus urophylla submitted to competition with weeds and determine the period prior to economic loss (PPEL). The experiment was carried out in Ulianópolis, Pará State, Brazil, and consisted of the treatments continuous control and no control of weeds. Weed management was carried out by integrating both mechanical and chemical control. Stem base diameter, height, canopy diameter of eucalyptus plants were measured on the 16th month after planting. Wood volume was estimated by means of a volumetric equation. The treatments continuous control and no control of weeds were compared using the Hotelling’s T2 test and the parameters for PPEL calculation were defined from volume estimation. The treatment continuous control promoted significant gains in eucalyptus growth. PPEL tended to be reduced by 3.8287 and 0.2393 units with the increase of a unit in the price of wood and the increase of planting yield, respectively. For different eucalyptus wood prices, the calculated PPEL ranged from 40 to 161 days of coexistence with weeds.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".