MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W19750611

Canadian recommendations for the prevention and treatment of malaria among international travellers--2009.

2009· article· en· W19750611 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Onur Kolören, Sibel Uygur, Olcay Bozdoğan, Feyzullah Uygur, Urs Schaffner

Bibliographic record

VenuePakistan Journal of Botany · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepensShootPerennial plantWeedBiologyHerbaceous plantHorticultureAgronomyBotany
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acroptilon repens is an herbaceous perennial that propagates by seeds and vegetative means. Its natural range extends from Turkey throughout Central Asia to China. A. repens is a major weed for grape, orchards and meadow area in Central of Turkey. Our objective was to determine density and expanding of A. repens patches in Central of Turkey. The patche experiments were conducted for an 6 undisturbed meadow in 2002-2003. Six of 1x1=1 m 2 plots were randomly selected in each patch (2 central (C), 2 middle (M) and 2 edge (E). Shoot density and height of A. repens were recorded at two different times (May and August) and also, fresh-dry weight and patch growth were recorded in August for each of the years from each plots The results of the 6 patches experiments for shoot height of A. repens in 2002 and 2003 ranged from 24.94 -31.33 cm and 19.31-25.41 cm plot -1 , respectively. In addition to this, the shoot density of A. repens in 2002 and 2003 ranged from 5.83-26.83 shoot plot -1 and 7.50-24.83 shoot plot -1 , respectively. The shoot density of A. repens was higher in central plot than the edge plot in 2002-2003. The patches of A. repens in Goreme1, Urgup 1, Urgup 3 and Urgup 4 in 2002-2003 were extended totaly 5, 16, 9 and 12 shoot plot -1 , respectively.

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 score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePakistan Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207