MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027525470 · doi:10.7202/706011ar

Variability of quackgrass (Agripyron repens) biotypes in Québec

2005· article· en· W2027525470 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
François J. Tardif, Gilles Leroux

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepensBiologyRhizomeShootAgropyronBiomass (ecology)Vegetative reproductionReproductionAgronomyBotanyDry weightPoaceaeHorticultureEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field experiments were conducted in 1985 and 1986 at Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada, to characterize the growth variability of 10 quackgrass (Agropyron repens) biotypes collected in Quebec. The growth variables and the pattern of biomass allocation differed significantly among biotypes. Three-fold difference existed among biotypes for the number of tillers and spikes. The number of daughter-shoots varied from 6 to 51. More than 1900 rhizome buds were formed by the most productive biotypes and fewer than 500 by the least productive ones. Biomass varied from 73 to 241 g dry weight between the least and the most productive biotype. The percentage of total biomass allocated to the mother-shoot and the daughter-shoots varied more between years and among biotypes than the percentage allocated to the rhizomes. Reproduction in quackgrass is predominantly vegetative and sexual reproduction is more variable among biotypes and years.

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 score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207