MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206345120 · doi:10.5539/jas.v14n2p122

Multiple Attributed Parametric Review Study on Mechanical Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Harvesters

2022· article· en· W4206345120 on OpenAlex
Rupinder Chandel, Karun Sharma

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicResearch in Cotton Cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLintHorsepowerAcreCropMathematicsPopulationGossypium hirsutumBt cottonGossypiumAgronomyEnvironmental scienceHorticultureEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crop characteristics of cotton are crucial to identify the important crop attributes like plant height, canopy width, sympods and monopods distribution, row spacing which affects the performance of mechanical harvesters. The activity and effectiveness of most harvest aids, including desiccants is reduced by low temperature conditions. Trash content was observed to be lesser in cotton harvested by cotton picker than cotton harvested by cotton stripper. It was found that a maximum cotton yield of 1000 kg acre-1 was obtained for a cotton plant population ranging between 45,000 and 90,000 plants acre-1. Likewise, a minimum of 700 to 740 kg acre-1 was observed for a cotton plant population of 33,000 plants acre-1. In higher yielding cotton, cotton pickers recorded higher picking rate than cotton strippers. Picking/harvesting efficiency of cotton stripper with both finger and brush type mechanism was higher than the spindle type cotton picker. Picking efficiency of pneumatic picker was higher than the other types of picking mechanisms, but with lesser rate of picking capacity. Gin turnout of cotton was higher with cotton picker when compared with cotton stripper due to lesser trash content in picker harvested cotton. The horsepower requirement of cotton stripper ranged from ½ to ¼ horsepower and cost is about two-thirds of the price as compared with cotton picker. The scheduling and monitoring of various activities involved in cotton picking by using a suitable software model can increase the benefits of both growers and harvesting companies. The reduction in uniformity with roller gin-type lint cleaners ranged between 0.2 to 0.8%, which was lesser as compared with saw-type lint cleaners. Introducing mechanical harvesting has always been a decades-long process. In Turkey, it took 20 years and in Greece, this process took place very gradually over a 15-year period. Top cotton producing countries like India, Pakistan, China, Uzbekistan and other developing countries like Iran Paraguay are still not using machine harvesting. The introduction of mechanical cotton picker or stripper can help improve quality and quantity of cotton picking thereby giving more benefit to growers in developing countries and improving their socio-economic status. The most controversial issue raised by the introduction of the mechanical cotton harvester is great migration as the machines eliminated jobs and forced poor families to leave their homes and farms in search for urban jobs. Therefore Government policies towards cotton harvesting mechanization must include the alternative jobs, packages for dependent manual cotton pickers and their families.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.237 · 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