Design, construction and field testing of a manually feeding semiautomatic sugarcane bud chipper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sugarcane is the main sugar crop, and sugar is an important agricultural product in Egypt. There are many problems with the technology used in the current planting method of sugarcane, which has a great impact on the planting quality of sugarcane, which have a series of problems, such as low cutting efficiency and poor quality. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to design, construct, and field testing of a semiautomatic sugarcane bud chipper assisted with pivot knives for cutting sugarcane buds and germinating them in plastic trays inside a greenhouse until they reached an average length of 35 cm, and then planting them in the field. In the field tests five cutting speeds (35, 40, 45, 50, and 56 rpm. (Revolution Per minute), three cutting knives (1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 mm) were used for cutting sugarcane stalks with four different diameters (1.32, 1.82, 2.43, and 2.68 cm). The obtained results showed that the values of the damage index and invisible losses were within acceptable limits (ranging between - 1.0 and 0.0) for all the variables under the test. Still, the lowest damage index and invisible losses were recorded with the buds that were cut with a knife of 1.5 mm thickness and cutting speeds less than 50 rpm. The skipping rate increases with the increase in cutting speed and stalk diameter, ranging between 0.0 to 13%. The maximum machine productivity was 110 Buds per minute at a cutting speed of 35 rpm and stalk diameter of 1.32 cm. The paper's findings have important application values for promoting the designing and development of sugarcane bud chipper and sugarcane planting technology in the future.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".