Evaluation of furrow openers and packers for conservation tillage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on a series of exploratory field studies in 1993 at the Swift Current research station two additional field studies were conducted in 1994 to establish test protocols for the investigation and evaluation of seed furrows formed by direct seeding operations. Measurements of seed furrow physical properties such as soil temperature, soil bulk density, soil moisture, and penetration resistance were repeated. Changes to sampling procedures included a modified soil moisture probe and wave guide connector along with an increased number of soil moisture measurement sites and additional measurements from below the seed furrow. Manual sampling of soil from within the furrow boundaries for soil aggregate determination replaced mechanical core sampling. Furrow profile measurements were carried out on unpacked and packed seed furrows to evaluate the accuracy of lower furrow boundary excavation techniques. To improve the accuracy of correlations between seed furrow characteristics, speed of emergence, plant counts, and above ground biomass row sample lengths were increased from 0.5 to 1.0 meter. This paper discusses the ability of the protocol to quantify significant differences in seed furrow characteristics created by 16 opener and packer combinations and their correlation to crop growth.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".