The Biology of Canadian Weeds. Revised format and instructions for preparation of updated accounts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 27 years the Canadian Journal of Plant Science has been publishing accounts on the biology of plants that are weedy in Canada.The series resulted from a recommendation by the Canada Weed Committee, now known as the Expert Committee on Weeds.The purpose was to bring together published and unpublished information on the biology of Canadian weeds, which could be utilized as a basis for effective economical and safe weed control methods and meet the needs of regulatory agencies in Canada.It was also intended that the series would result in research that would fill important gaps in our knowledge of the biology of these weeds.An article by Cavers and Mulligan entitled "A New Series -The Biology of Canadian Weeds" appeared in the Canadian Journal of Plant Science in July 1972 and it provided a detailed format for the series.Over 110 accounts have been published to date.With the passage of time, there has been a recognized need for an updated format for the series especially to allow for access to other information media that have become available.In addition, much new information has been published since the first accounts in this series appeared; hence there is a need for updated accounts on certain species.The term "weed," as used in this series, refers to any vascular plant that perpetuates itself in habitats where it is not wanted.Contributions should contain accounts of a single weed species or a group of related species.Offers of contributions by individuals or groups should be made to Dr. P. B.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.258 | 0.147 |
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".