MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321640122 · doi:10.31062/agrom.v30.e026934

Thermal environment in an agroforestry system of coffee and rubber tree in Southern Brazil

2022· article· en· W4321640122 on OpenAlexaff
Juliandra Rodrigues Rosisca, Paulo Henrique Caramori, Heverly Morais, Marcelo Aguiar e Silva, George Mitsuo Yada, Daniel Campos Caramori

Bibliographic record

VenueAgrometeoros · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoffea arabicaMicroclimateHevea brasiliensisAgroforestryNatural rubberCoffeaEnvironmental scienceClimate changeGeographyAgronomyHorticultureBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change poses a significant risk to the production of Coffea arabica in currently cultivated areas, as the species has low tolerance to extreme temperature. Agroforestry systems are an alternative to contribute to the adaptation of this species and to continue the production in the regions where it is currently cultivated. This study assesses the thermal environment of an agroforestry system (AFS) composed of coffee and rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis) planted in double rows with different spacings in Londrina, Parana state, Southern Brazil. Data of global solar radiation and temperature of air, leaves, and soil were continuously collected from 2015 to 2018. The findings reveal that the presence of rubber trees affected the microclimate by reducing extreme temperatures and decreasing mean temperatures. In the experimental conditions of limited size of the plots, leaf and soil temperatures represented more realistically the modifications in the microclimate induced by the rubber trees. The study concludes that this system can effectively contribute to the adaptation of coffee plantations in a warmer environment, in order to continue producing in traditional regions in Brazil.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgrometeorosSame topicCoffee research and impactsFrench-language works237,207