Experimental and Numerical Modelling of Condensed Atmospheric Air for Irrigation of Agricultural Crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research aims to develop efficient methods to extract water from the air, specifically for irrigation of crops, by utilizing moisture available in atmospheric air. Rainwater collection, dew collection, and fog water collection are some of the methods that have been widely investigated as a means to mitigate the impact of the growing population and shrinking clean water resources (Jarimi, 2020, Peeters et al., 2020, Tu et al., 2018). Typically, attempts to collect dew investigate completely passive, planar, tilted surfaces made of different materials. An example of an early study is Alnaser and Barakat (2000), who proved the feasibility of irrigation by condensation on foils in a desert region in the winter months. Significant research aims to extract water from atmospheric air using desiccants (e.g., Zhao et al., 2019) and include experimental efforts and numerical simulations (Kumar and Yadav, 2015, Wang et al. 2017). Moreover, active systems are necessary to achieve high yield (Khalil et al., 2016). However, there is little basic information on condensation on external surfaces with complex geometries and specific aspects of its implementation in conjunction with plants in various environmental conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 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".