MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574368001

Production and Wind Dispersal of Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense L.) Achenes

2008· article· en· W1574368001 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roger L. Becker, Milt Haar, B.D. Kinkaid, Lee Klossner, Frank Forcella

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinnesota Department of TransportationU.S. Department of Transportation
KeywordsAcheneThistleBiological dispersalBiologyCirsium arvenseShootBotanySeed dispersalMilk ThistlePopulationAgronomyHorticultureDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantity, quality and dispersal distance of wind-blown achenes and pappi were determined during the peak time of
\ndispersal over twelve site-years in Minnesota during 2006 and 2007. Approximately twice as many pappi than
\nachenes were trapped. Wind blown pappi tend to travel near the ground. Most achenes fell near the parent plants
\nand their population density declined exponentially with increasing distance. Over 80% of pappi collected did not
\nhave an achene attached. Concomitantly, seed production in Canada thistle was monitored for 8 site-years in
\nMinnesota. Averaged across years and locations, female Canada thistle shoots that flowered produced an average
\nof 38% empty, 17% shrunken, and 44% normal achenes. Male shoots produce about half the number of seedheads
\ncompared to female shoots. A low level of hermaphroditic expression was observed in male shoots. Though seed
\nproduction by female Canada thistle is extremely variable, when sufficient pollen is available, Canada thistle
\nclearly has the potential to generate significant contributions to seedbanks to maintain invasive stands. However,
\ndispersal by wind is for the most part, local. Long distance dispersal of significant numbers of healthy achenes
\nwould be a rare event.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.150
Teacher spread0.137 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota)Same topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207