MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014730425 · doi:10.2135/cropsci2009.06.0312

Covered Grains in Naked Oat: Environment and Herbicide Effects

2010· article· en· W2014730425 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathalie Lanoie, Anne Vanasse, J. Collin, Judith Frégeau Reid, Denis Pageau, Julie Lajeunesse, Julie Durand

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversité Laval
FundersCouncil for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa
KeywordsPanicleMCPAAvenaBiologyBromoxynilWeedDicambaTiller (botany)AgronomyWeed controlHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Naked oat ( Avena sativa L.) grown in Québec, Canada, produces an average of 10% covered grains. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of environment, herbicide, and genotype on the proportion of covered grains, to study the relation between the presence of awns and the proportion of covered grains, and to determine the location of covered grains on the plant (tiller) and on the panicle. Eight oat lines were evaluated over 2 yr at four experimental sites. Each line was treated with bromoxynil/MCPA, dicamba/MCPA, or thifensulfuron methyl/tribenuron methyl applied at Zadoks 12–13 and compared to a hand‐weeded check. The highest percentages of covered grains, 5.5 and 6.9%, were found at different sites in 2006 and 2007. The application of dicamba/MCPA increased the percentage of covered grains in the lines normally producing a higher proportion of covered grains, but low producing lines were less affected. Minor differences were found among the other weed control treatments. No relation was found between the presence of awns and the proportion of naked grains. Covered grains were mostly produced on the main stem and their position on the panicle depended on genotype and weed control treatment.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207