COMPARISON OF ROPE-WICK AND BROADCAST TREATMENTS FOR CONTROL OF CANADA THISTLE AND TALL IRONWEED
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".