MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Canada Thistle (<i>Cirsium arvense</i>) Control with Hexazinone in Crown Vetch (<i>Coronilla varia</i>)<sup>1</sup>

2001· article· en· W2004567818 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip W. Tipping

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThistleCirsium arvenseAgronomyHexazinoneBiologyCrown (dentistry)WeedInterspecific competitionCompetition (biology)Weed controlBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spot treatments with hexazinone (0.03, 0.046, and 0.06% ai [v/v]) were evaluated for their effects on thistle density, seed production, and crown vetch vigor from 1991 to 1994 to determine if long-term usage of hexazinone caused damage to the vetch and exacerbated the thistle problem. Thistle densities were reduced within a year at any concentration of hexazinone and seed production was reduced or eliminated. Environment had a large impact because initial thistle densities varied widely among years. The amount of precipitation during July of the previous year accounted for 89% of the variation in initial thistle densities in the subsequent year. Vetch injury from hexazinone was also best explained by the amount of precipitation during July. Vigorously growing crown vetch in wet years may have suppressed the thistles enough to reduce density the following year while drought years reduced the competitiveness of the crown vetch, resulting in higher initial densities of thistles in the following year.Nomenclature: Hexazinone; Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. #3 CIRAR; crown vetch, Coronilla varia L.Additional index words: Herbicide selectivity, interspecific plant competition, weather effects.Abbreviation: PPFD, photosynthetic photon flux density.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed TechnologySame topicBotanical Research and ChemistryFrench-language works237,207