MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011900742 · doi:10.7202/706058ar

Weed survey of spring cereals in New Brunswick

2005· article· en· W2011900742 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
A. G. Thomas, Douglas Doohan, Kevin V. McCully

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsGovernment of New BrunswickNova Scotia Department of AgricultureAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyWeedAgronomyPerennial plantWeed controlStellaria mediaMCPAAvenaCrop

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During 1986 and 1987, a weed survey of 187 New Brunswick cereal fields was conducted. A total of 76 species were identified of which 40 were considered agronomically important. About 50% of the species were perennial. Hemp-nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit), quack grass (Agropyron repens), sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), corn spurry (Spergula arvensis), and chickweed (Stellaria média) had the highest relative abundance values. Quack grass and hemp-nettle had the highest densities at 8.0 and 7.1 plants m-2, respectively. The highest weed density (103 plants m-2) was found in oats (Avena sativa) grown after a forage crop. The lowest density (24 plants m-2) was found in wheat (Triticum aestivum) grown after potatoes (Solarium tuberosum). Most of the abundant species were tolerant to MCPA, the most commonly used herbicide. Farmers could make major improvements in cereal weed control by choosing a herbicide that would control species tolerant to MCPA or 2,4-D, and using preplant or postharvest weed control to minimize the impact of perennial weeds.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207