INFLUENCE OF EXCITATION POSITION ON MECHANIZED PICKING EFFECT OF CAMELLIA OLEIFERA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Camellia oleifera oil is easily absorbed by the human body and has a high development prospect in the research and development of new drugs. However, the labor intensity involved in picking has limited the development of the camellia oil industry. Vibratory mechanized harvesting is considered to be an effective way to solve harvesting difficulties. In this study, the whole process of accelerating the mechanical vibration picking is analyzed theoretically, according to different vibration positions (height), and a vibration picking experiment is carried out. The ratio of the optimal excitation location to the years of growth of Camellia oleifera was found to be between 16 and 20. It was observed that with the increase of camellia growing years, this ratio gradually decreased, and its optimal vibration position showed an increasing trend. Further, when the excitation time was greater than 8 s, the fruit removal rate did not continue to increase, but the buds and leaves falling continued to decrease. This study can effectively improve the efficiency of camellia oil fruit picking and reduce the drop-off of camellia buds and leaves.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".