MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017053218 · doi:10.1614/wt-d-11-00096.1

Acetolactate Synthase (ALS) Inhibitor-Resistant Wild Buckwheat (<i>Polygonum convolvulus</i>) in Alberta

2012· article· en· W2017053218 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hugh J. Beckie, Suzanne I. Warwick, Connie A. Sauder

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAlberta Crop Industry Development Fund
KeywordsAcetolactate synthaseSulfonylureaWeedBiologyImazapyrPopulationWeed controlPhytopharmacologyAgronomyBotanyGeneBiotechnologyGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wild buckwheat is the most abundant broadleaf weed across the Prairie region of western Canada. Acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicides are commonly used to control this species and other broadleaf weeds in cereal crops. A field survey in Alberta in 2007 identified a single population that was putatively resistant to ALS-inhibiting herbicides. In herbicide resistance screening in the greenhouse, all F 1 progeny tested were resistant to the ALS-inhibiting herbicides thifensulfuron/tribenuron, a sulfonylurea herbicide, or florasulam, a triazolopyrimidine herbicide; dose response of shoot biomass indicated the population was 10- and 20-fold less sensitive to thifensulfuron/tribenuron and florasulam, respectively, than a susceptible control population. ALS gene sequencing of 24 F 1 progeny indicated that the Trp 574 Leu target-site mutation was responsible for conferring ALS-inhibitor resistance in this biotype, the first global report of ALS-inhibitor resistance for this species. Because this mutation typically endows high-level resistance across all five ALS-inhibitor classes, this wild buckwheat biotype may only be controlled by a different site-of-action herbicide.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.214
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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed TechnologySame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207