Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents the history of the development and implementation of No-till technology abroad and in Ukraine, indicating the countries and years where and when this technology was developed and implemented. It is indicated that a great contribution to the development of the theoretical foundations of minimization of soil cultivation due to No-till technology was made by the scientists of the USA, who, according to most indicators, highly rated this technology. Among its shortcomings, they attributed the deterioration of the ecological situation due to weeds, diseases and pests and the need to apply higher doses of nitrogen fertilizers and herbicides. Scientists of the National Research Center "Institute of Agriculture" of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences add to this list a delay of three to four days with the spring ripening of the soil due to the presence of plant remains in the form of mulch on its surface and the spread of mouse-like rodents. This limitation of the disadvantages of No-till technology makes it quite successful in terms of spread in agricultural production, because annually its area in the world grows by more than 1 million hectares. Its largest areas are in the USA, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Australia and Paraguay, and in Brazil, no-till technology is included in the ranks of government programs with appropriate crediting. In Europe as a whole, the share of land with No-till technology in the structure of sown areas does not exceed 3 %. The optimal conditions for No-till technology in the forest-steppe and steppe zones of Ukraine are on an area of 5.25 million hectares, but its development is currently far from 1 million hectares. The problem of the prevalence of no-till technology in domestic production is seen by the majority of scientists as excessive weediness of the crops grown for it, although in our opinion this phenomenon is possible only in the early stages of the development of the technology without tillage. No-till technology has its future, because only it, among many other technologies, can guarantee an extended reproduction of soil fertility. Key words: No-till technology, weediness of sowing, soil fertility.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".