Competitive ability of hybrid and open-pollinated canola (<i>Brassica napus</i>) with wild oat (<i>Avena fatua</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The competitiveness of three hybrid and three open-pollinated canola cultivars against two wild oat populations was determined under controlled environment conditions at two plant densities and five canola:wild oat ratios (100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75, 0:100). Analysis of replacement series and derivation of relative crowding coefficients (RCC), based on shoot dry weight or leaf area, indicated that hybrid canola cultivars were twice as competitive than open-pollinated cultivars when weed interference was relatively high (i.e., high plant density and vigorous wild oat growth). Little difference in competitiveness among cultivar types was apparent when weed interference was lower. The results of this study suggest that hybrid canola cultivars may be best suited for use in an integrated weed management program, particularly for farmers of organic or low input cropping systems. Key words: Hybrid canola, Brassica napus, Avena fatua, replacement series, competition
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".