MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of temperature and photoperiod on the phenological development of common lambsquarters

2001· article· en· W2003998772 on OpenAlexaff
Jian Zhong Huang, Anil Shrestha, M. Tollenaar, William M. Deen, Hamid Rahimian, Clarence J. Swanton

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLambsquartersPhenologyphotoperiodismWeedBiologyAgronomyHorticultureChenopodium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of a mechanistic model is to determine the outcome of weed–crop interference. An understanding of weed phenology is essential for construction of such models because phenological development is a major factor determining the outcome of weed–crop competition. Growth cabinet studies were conducted to determine the influence of temperature and photoperiod on the phenological development of common lambsquarters. Common lambsquarters is a short-day species adapted to a temperature range of 6.5 to 44.5 C. Phenological development of common lambsquarters grown under a constant temperature of 20 C and an 8-h photoperiod was described in terms of biological days (Bd: chronological days at the optimum photoperiod and temperature). Three development phases of common lambsquarters were described as (1) a juvenile phase of 6.3 Bd, (2) a photoperiod-sensitive inductive phase of 8.2 Bd, and (3) a photoperiod-sensitive postinductive phase of 34.4 Bd. The photoperiod sensitivity of rate of development did not differ among phases of development across the life cycle. Interpretation of constant sensitivity to photoperiod will simplify simulation of weed phenology in mechanistic models.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed ScienceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207