MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137932653 · doi:10.5539/jas.v13n4p173

Technical and Field Evaluation of Tractor Operated Frontal Pre-pruner for Kinnow Mandarin (Citrus reticulata) and Guava (Myrtaceae) Orchard

2021· article· en· W3137932653 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manjeet Singh, Rupinder Chandel, Surinder Thakur

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPunjab Agricultural University
KeywordsPruningOrchardHorticultureCrown (dentistry)CanopyTrunkMathematicsApple treeBiologyBotanyAgroforestryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fruit tree pruning is the cutting and removing of selected parts of a fruit tree. It spans through quite a number of horticultural techniques. Pruning includes cutting branches back, sometimes removing smaller limbs entirely and more so the removal of young shoots, buds and leaves. Established orchard practice of both organic and nonorganic types typically includes pruning. Pruning can control growth, remove dead or diseased wood, and stimulate the formation of flowers and fruit buds. Pruning and training young trees improves their later productivity and longevity and can also prevent later injury from weak crotches or forks (where a tree trunk splits into two or more branches) that break from the weight of fruit, snow, or ice on the branches. However, the efficiency of pruning methods is also important. Manual pruning has constraints like lower field Capacity and incomplete pruning in case of tall trees. Therefore, a tractor operated 1-row frontal pre-pruner with electro hydraulic control was tested for Kinnow Mandarin and Guava orchards. The time involved for top and side pruning was 23.30 and 46.80 min/acre, respectively and there was 99.32-99.38% saving in time as compared to manual pruning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207