MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973123803 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n16p195

Statistical Quality Control in Uniformity of Drip Irrigation With Different Slopes

2019· article· en· W2973123803 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Allan Remor Lopes, Márcio Antônio Vilas Boas, Félix Augusto Pazuch, Luciano Dalla Corte, Diane Aparecida Ostroski, Marcelo Bevilacqua Remor, Fabíola Bogoni Mundstock Mohr, Marcelo Dotto, Alessandro Paggiarin Zanella, Acir Felipe Grolli Carvalho, Álvaro Rodrigo Freddo, Ivan Carlos Bertoldo, Kelli Pirola, Camila Moreno Giarola

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicIrrigation Practices and Water Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCUSUMStatisticsControl chartStatistical process controlMathematicsQuality (philosophy)Distribution uniformityIrrigationControl (management)Soil gradationProcess (computing)Environmental scienceAgricultural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringSoil scienceArtificial intelligenceMaterials sciencePhysicsAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The topography directly influences the functioning of an irrigation system, being necessary the determination of the uniformity to verify its performance. Statistical quality control is a powerful tool for verifying the quality of a process. Thus, it was aimed to use the statistical control of quality in the evaluation of the uniformity of a drip irrigation system in different slopes. The Christiansen’s uniformity coefficient (UC) and Uniformity of Distribution (UD) were determined and analyzed by the control graphs of Shewhart, Zones and CUSUM and by the indices of process capacity (Cp, Cpl and Cpk), in different slopes (0%, 2% and -2%). The slope irrigation was more uniform (UC = 99.03% and UD = 98.45%), however, for all the graphs studied it was out of statistical control. Zone charts were more sensitive than the CUSUM and Shewhart charts.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicIrrigation Practices and Water ManagementFrench-language works237,207