MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011058537 · doi:10.4141/p03-016

The Biology of Invasive Alien Plants in Canada. 1. <i>Eriochloa villosa</i> (Thunb.) Kunth

2003· article· en· W2011058537 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
S. J. Darbyshire, Claire E. Wilson, Ken Allison

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBiological Control of Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeedBiologyAgronomyGerminationWeed controlInvasive speciesAlienGrowing seasonBotanyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The annual grass weed Eriochloa villosa, woolly cup grass, was reported for the first time in Canada in 2000, in southwestern Quebec. It is a serious agricultural pest of field crops in the Midwest United States where it has been difficult and expensive to control. The production of stolons early in the growing season and the extensive branching of stems later in the season mean that single plants occupy and disperse seed over a large area. Cleistogamous flowers ensure good seed set, and plants produce large numbers of seeds. After an initial spring germination flush, seeds continue to germinate throughout the growing season resulting in escapes from early control measures. The large seeds can germinate and emerge under a wide range of soil temperatures and soil depths. Woolly cup grass is tolerant of many herbicides and effective control in agro-ecosystems usually depends on integrated strategies of multiple herbicide applications, cultural and mechanical methods. The above biological features and its presence in a number of bordering States suggest that the species is a potential weed hazard in southern Canada, particularly in areas of corn and soybean production in Quebec and Ontario. Key words: Eriochloa villosa, woolly cup grass, ERBVI, weed biology, invasive alien

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicBiological Control of Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207