A Survey on Energy Use in Agricultural Irrigation and Determination of Saving Measures in Sanliurfa, Diyarbakir and Mardin Provinces in Turkey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study is to determine the necessary measures to reduce energy consumption and save energy in agricultural irrigation in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey. The primary data of the survey study consists of the primary data collected through face-to-face surveys with producers in Sanliurfa, Diyarbakir and Mardin provinces. In the survey, the number of questionnaires to be applied to the producers was determined as 300 in total and the farms to be surveyed were determined by using stratified random sampling method. Flood and furrow irrigation methods are commonly used (62%) in the region. About a quarter of the farmers apply sprinkler irrigation. Nearly four-fifths (78%) of the farmers in the region report that there is a loss-leakage in the irrigation system. A very high proportion (95%) of the farmers in the region apply non-pressure irrigation, and approximately three-quarters (76%) report that they do not know whether the pumps and irrigation systems used are working at the recommended flow and pressure. Almost all of the farmers in the region (98%) do not use solar energy systems. A very high proportion (94%) of regional farmers does not use engine drivers in pumps. The responses of the farmers to the survey questions were interpreted and discussed and suggestions were developed based on the responses of the farmers to the survey questions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it