MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001843758 · doi:10.4141/cjps07152

Productivity and quality of canola and mustard cultivars under weed competition

2008· article· en· W2001843758 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Hugh J. Beckie, Eric N. Johnson, Robert E. Blackshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on Brassica
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaBrassicaSinapisAgronomyWeedCultivarBiologyCompetition (biology)Weed controlMustard seedHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Competitive crops or cultivars can be an important component of integrated weed management systems. A study was conducted from 2003 to 2006 at four sites across semiarid prairie ecoregions in Saskatchewan and Alberta to investigate the productivity and quality of canola (Brassica napusL.) and mustard cultivars under weed competition. Four open-pollinated canola cultivars, four hybrid canola cultivars, two canola-quality mustard and two oriental mustard cultivars [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. & Coss.], and two yellow mustard (Sinapis alba L.) cultivars were grown under weedy and weed-free conditions. When combined across site-years, crop aboveground biomass at maturity and seed yield were reduced by weed interference, except for yellow and oriental mustard. However, seed oil and protein content of cultivars were not affected by weed competition. Among crop types, yellow and oriental mustard were best able to maintain biomass and seed yield under weed interference, followed in decreasing order of competitiveness by hybrid and open-pollinated canola, then canola-quality mustard. Key words: Brassica napus, Brassica juncea, Sinapis alba, weed 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on BrassicaFrench-language works237,207