Sugarcane Productivity Simulation Under Different Scenarios by DSSAT/CANEGRO Model in the Western São Paulo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is one of the most important crops in Brazil and its growth and development can be simulated through process-based models. The current study evaluated a model based on the decision support system for the transfer of Agrotechnology DSSAT/CANEGRO to simulate the sugarcane crop productivity in the western region of São Paulo. The DSSAT/CANEGRO model was calibrated using published yield parameters from a selection of five Brazilian sugarcane cultivars, while sugarcane yield data (tons of stems per hectare) from commercial land were used as benchmark data. Other modeling inputs were derived from the primary regional cultivar. The root mean square error (RMSE), Willmott agreement index (d), and mean absolute error (MAE) were used as performance metrics. The DSSAT/CANEGRO model resulted in a good RMSE performance. The productivity estimates were better for the cultivars SP791010 and RB835486, with RMSE equal to 2.27 and 4.48 Mg ha-1, respectively. The comparison between model-based estimates and observed data produced d values in the range from 0.86 to 0.99, and MAE values in the range of 1.84 to 4.22 Mg ha-1.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".