MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588507707

COMPARISON OF ROPE-WICK AND BROADCAST TREATMENTS FOR CONTROL OF CANADA THISTLE AND TALL IRONWEED

2009· article· en· W1588507707 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daisy M. Fryman

Bibliographic record

VenueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriclopyrThistleClopyralidAgronomyWeed controlHorticultureBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tall ironweed (Vernonia altissima) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control in cool season grass pastures was evaluated in 2007 and 2008. Tall ironweed was evaluated in Fayette and Boone Counties, KY and Canada thistle was evaluated at Spindletop Research Farm. Herbicides applied selectively with a rope-wick were compared to a broadcast foliar spray. Treatments were a broadcast treatment, of aminopyralid + 2, 4-D and six rope-wick treatments: aminopyralid at three concentrations, glyphosate, triclopyr and clopyralid at one concentration each. The Boone County location had five broadcast foliar treatments: aminopyralid at three rates, triclopyr + fluroxpyr, and 2,4-D + triclopyr. The Canada thistle study consisted of the same six rope-wick treatments as the Fayette County tall ironweed study. A broadcast treatment of aminopyralid at 70 g a.e./ha was included in 2008. Studies were evaluated 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 52 weeks after treatment. Aminopyralid plus 2,4-D provided 86% control of tall ironweed 52 WAT. Aminopyralid at 20% v/v controlled 65% of tall ironweed. Canada thistle control 52 WAT ranged from 0 to 25% control for the six ropewick treatments.

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 score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky)Same topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207