Effect of Stone Impacts on Various Ground Engaging Tools (Flexible/Stiff Tines and Coulter): Part I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of the state of knowledge showed a gap in the description of tool–stone feedback. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate tool–stone interactions. Spherical-like silicate stones were hit by stiff and flexible tines with a duckfoot or a coulter. The tools worked with various parameters in the depth range of 0.05–0.10 m and a speed of 0.83–2.22 m·s–1. The characteristics of stone movement were specific to the type of tool and were described by the Numerical Stone Movement Scale developed for the purpose of the research. After the impact with the stiff tine, the stones were thrown the greatest distance of 0.26–1.08 m, and these distances were strongly dependent on the working speed and slightly dependent on the working depth. Large vibrations of the flexible tine and the location of the contact point of the tine in relation to the centre of the stone thickness contributed to the random behaviour of stones that were slightly moved, rotated or displaced. The specific work required to remove the stone reflected the distance travelled by the stone as well as the specific force which largely contributed to increasing the differences in this work between both tines.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".