Kinetics and Dynamics of the Stiff and Flexible Tines with the Duckfoot and the Coulter after Impact with Stones Embedded in Compacted Soil. Part II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The kinetics and dynamics of the stiff and flexible tines with the duckfoot and the coulter after impact with stones embedded in compacted soil were examined. The beak of the duckfoot was positioned in the axis of the row of stones embedded in the soil at the depth of stones thickness. The coulter covered the stone or impact the edge of the stone halfway along its length. The tools worked at a speed of 0.83–2.22 m·s−1 and a working depth of 0.05–0.10 m. The results of specific parameters were compared to the response of the tools to loads in soil without stones. For both soil conditions, the kinetics of the flexible tine was 24 times more reactive, and the dynamic loads were two times lower than for the stiff tine. The responses of both tines were suppressed along with the working depth because of the more favorable place of impact of the duckfoot beak with the stone. Along with the working speed, for a stiff tine, the specific accelerations decreased significantly, by ten times, and the specific forces increased slightly, by 1.6 times. Among the two systems of setting the coulter, the impact of the cutting edge of the coulter with the stone in the middle of its length was more unfavorable than the work of the coulter covering the stone.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".