MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011627312 · doi:10.1614/wt-d-11-00007.1

Response of Dry Bulb Onion, Sugar Beet, and Pinto Beans to Imazosulfuron Soil Residues

2011· article· en· W2011627312 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joël Félix

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSugar beetBulbPinto beanSugarAgronomyBiologyRandomized block designHorticultureWeedWeed controlFood sciencePhaseolus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field studies were conducted in 2010 in Ontario, OR, to evaluate the response of direct-seeded dry bulb onion, sugar beet, and pinto beans to imazosulfuron soil residues 12 mo after application to control weeds in potato. The studies were organized as randomized complete block designs with three replications each. Imazosulfuron was applied alone PRE at 224 and 450 g ai ha −1 , sequentially at 224 g ha −1 PRE and POST, or in tank mixture with S -metolachlor 1,060 g ha −1 . Very few onion plants emerged in plots previously treated with imazosulfuron at 224 g ha −1 , regardless of timing. Emerged onion plants were severely injured and never matured. No onions emerged from residues of imazosulfuron applied at 450 g ha −1 . A few sugar beet plants emerged from 224 g ha −1 but were severely stunted and never grew beyond the first set of leaves. There was no sugar beet emergence from imazosulfuron sequential applications, regardless of the rate and application timing. However, imazosulfuron residues did not affect pinto beans, which emerged and produced marketable yield, similar to grower standard and nontreated plots. The results suggest sensitivity of direct-seeded dry bulb onion and sugar beet, but not pinto beans, to imazosulfuron residues 12 mo after application.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.208
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed TechnologySame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207