Bibliographic record
Abstract
The response of eighteen maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids to rimsulfuron [(1-(4-6-dimetoxipyrimidin-2-yl))-3-((ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridylsulfonyl) urca] was evaluated under field conditions on the campus of Université Laval (Québec, Canada). These hybrids were selected based on a wide range of maize heat unit (MHU) requirements. The response of hybrids to post emergence treatment of rimsulfuron (20, 40, and 60 g a.i ha-1) was compared to an untreated hand-weeded control. The data recorded included visual shoot phytotoxicity, plant height, and above-ground dry matter. Visual phytotoxicity varied among the same hybrid with respect to the date of evaluation, from 32% to 46% in 1992, and from 11% and 23% in 1993. According to Principal Component Analysis (PCA), the first component accounted for 820/0 ofthe total variance, with high weights ('eigenvectors') on the visual phytotoxicity 14, 21, 28, and 35 DAT. This signified that comparision among hybrids for sensitivity to rimsulfuron could be carried out by means of visual scores 14, 21, 28 or 35 DAT. Hybrids react differently to different doses of rimsulfuron. Some hybrids tolerated a high dose ofrimsulfuron, while others were severely injured at a low dose. A hybrid phytotoxicity score (HPS), based on the mean of visual scores at 14, 21, 28 and 35 DAT, averaged across all three application doses, was used to group the hybrids into three categories according to their degree of tolerance: I:Tolerant (HPS < O); II. Moderately tolerant (HPS ≡ O); and III.Sensitive (HPS > O). Tolerance to rimsulfuron varied also depending on genotypes which was positively correlated to MHU requirements. Hybrids of zone 1 of Québec (> 2700 MHU) were more tolerant (based on the HPS) than hybrids of zone 2 (2500 to 2700 MHU) and zone 3 (2300 to 2500 MHU). Key words: herbicide tolerance, phytotoxicítyscore, sulfonylurcas, maize heat units, multivariate analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".