Packaging and Handling Burley Tobacco in Bales at the Farm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanization of production and marketing procedures for burley tobacco had experienced little change in several decades prior to 1980. Burley tobacco production required large amounts of hand labor with minimum mechanization. Both the availability and cost of intensive hand labor required at peak seasons began forcing many producers to seek labor-saving tech niques. About one-half of the labor required for the production of burley tobacco prior to the late 1970s involved stripping and preparation for market. Leaves of air cured burley tobacco were removed from the stalk, held in an oriented fashion and tied with a wrapper leaf into "hands " or bundles. Studies indicated that considerable farm and warehouse labor and time might be saved if burley tobaGco could be successf ully marketed in an untied or loose-leaf form. Flue-cured tobacco was marketed in a loose-leaf, unoriented manner, packaged in a burlap sheet. Canadian and other types of tobacco were packaged and marketed in a compressed bale. lnterest by many producers in loose-leaf methods for packaging and handing burley tobacco coincided with this increased interest. Further information was gained from various experiments on labor requirements for packaging by conventional and loose-leaf methods, on moisture variables in the loose-leaf package, and on the technical and mechanical aspects of loose-leaf handling. These studies and experiments by industry and public agencies led to the approval of unlimited sale of baled burley by the Secretary of Agriculture beginning in the 1981-82 marketing year. Widespread adoption of the bale method has been made by producers and the industry since that time. This publication provides educational information and plans for packaging and handling burley at the farm in the approved bale form.* *See References for further information. totr l|ao?
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".