MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018174963 · doi:10.7202/706075ar

Identification and documentation of herbicide resistance

2005· article· en· W2018174963 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioassayBiologyResistance (ecology)Identification (biology)WeedPetri dishHerbicide resistanceBiotechnologyPopulationPlant growthBotanyAgronomyEcologyMicrobiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proactive herbicide resistance management programs rely upon early detection of resistant populations and knowledge of which combinations of weed and herbicide are prone to the development of resistance. Annual weeds that are prolific seed producers, genetically diverse, and repeatedly exposed to a single herbicide mode of action, are prone to rapid development of resistance. When resistance is suspected, seed samples are collected and evaluated using a whole plant bioassay. Whole plant bioassays are conducted underfield, growth room, or Petri dish conditions. Complete dose response curves for the suspected resistant and a reference susceptible population are used to verify resistance. Bioassay, conducted in growth rooms, is the most reliable method for identification of new cases of herbicide resistance. Bioassays, based on the biochemical detection of a single mechanism of resistance, are not reliable for screening for new occurrences of resistance.

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.

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 score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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