MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388476817 · doi:10.3920/9789086865543_073

A decision support tool for seed mixture calculations

2005· book-chapter· en· W4388476817 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B.P. Berg, G. Hutton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural pest management studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grassland species are normally seeded in mixtures rather than monocultures. In theory, seeding rates for mixtures are simply a sum of the amount of pure live seed (PLS) of each seed lot in the mix, an amount sufficient to ensure establishment and survival of each species. Mixtures can be complex because of the number of species used (especially in conservation and reclamation programs) and variations in seed purity and seed size. Soil limitations and seeding equipment settings need to be considered and in Canada, a metric conversion may be required. All these conditions make by-hand calculations of mixtures containing more than 3 species tedious and complicated. Thus, in practice, agronomists and growers use simple rules to set rates. The easiest rule is to estimate the mixture’s components as a percentage by weight of a standardized total weight of the seed required (e.g. 10% of 10 kg/ha). The resulting errors can be observed in the predominance of thin stands, the unexpected dominance of small seeded species and the added costs of interseeding to compete with weeds and fertilizer to increase yield. The objective of this project was to develop a decision support tool, a seed mixture calculator to simplify conversion and improve the estimates of seed required for individual seeding projects.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0050.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgricultural pest management studiesFrench-language works237,207