Floristic and phytocoenological research of segetal plant communities in cultivated areas of southern Srem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Segetal vegetation was studied in the cultivated areas of southern Srem with the aim of analyzing its taxonomy, phytocoenology, syntaxonomy and phytogeography, as well as determining to what extent ecological factors influenced the differentiation of segetal plant communities among row crops, small grain crops and in alfalfa fields. Segetal flora was comprised of 124 plant species, classified into 38 families, of which Asteraceae (28), Fabaceae (10) and Poaceae (10) contained the greatest number of species. Three associations were selected based on phytocoenological analysis: Polygonetum convolvulo-avicularis, Consolido-Polygonetum avicularis and Lolio-Plantaginetum majoris, as well as five lower syntaxa (subassociations and facies). Crop type, moisture, habitat acidity (pH), temperature and anthropogenic factors had the greatest impact on the ecological differentiation of the studied vegetation. The significant presence of non-native species (18) was another consequence of the anthropogenic effects and geographic position of southern Srem, and these, as coenobionts of segetal plant communities and undesirable species, had a significant impact on crop yield.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".