MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256493809 · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr42.c9

Silage Storage

2003· book-chapter· en· W4256493809 on OpenAlex
Philippe Savoie, J. C. Jofriet

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy monograph/Agronomy · 2003
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiloInformation siloBunkerTowerSilageEngineeringWaste managementEnvironmental scienceStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter describes various storage methods and losses associated with storage. The tower silo is a vertical cylindrical container that can be used to store various feeds. The most common type of tower silo is the top-unloading silo. Top-unloading silos are generally constructed of precast concrete blocks referred to as "staves". Bottom-unloading silos are constructed of cast-in-place concrete or steel such that the ingress of air is limited to minimize spoilage of the fermented feed. There are two basic types of top-unloading equipment: suspended and surface riding. A bunker silo, sometimes referred to as a "horizontal silo", is a paved area surrounded on two or three sides by near-vertical retaining walls usually <6 m high. Bunker silos are less expensive to build than tower silos. The chapter presents few silage fermentation reactions. Silage storage systems are usually designed to conserve high quality feedstuff for ruminants at a minimal cost.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.197 · 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