MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032107265 · doi:10.4141/cjps08181

The biology of Canadian weeds. 65. <i>Salsola tragus</i> L. (updated)

2009· article· en· W2032107265 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Hugh J. Beckie, A. Francis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsWeedBiologyAgronomyAridBiological dispersalCropBromus tectorumWeed controlAgroforestryBotanyPerennial plantEcologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This account updates that published by Crompton and Bassett in 1985 (classified then as Salsola pestifer A. Nels.). The taxonomy of this species has been controversial and confusing. Salsola tragus is an annual broadleaf weed species native to Eurasia and inadvertently introduced to the Americas in crop seed in 1873. This naturalized species is a common and economically important weed in crop production systems and non-cropped disturbed areas in semiarid to arid regions of western North America; in eastern North America, S. tragus commonly occurs along roadsides, railways, and other dry, stony, and sandy areas. Pollen-mediated gene flow and efficient seed dispersal aids both short- and long-distance spread. As a C 4 species, S. tragus is highly competitive in semiarid and arid small-grain cropping systems because of its ability to emerge early, efficiently extract soil available water by its extensive root system, and tolerate heat, drought, and salinity. Moreover, the evolution of acetolactate synthase-inhibitor resistance has impacted herbicidal control of the species. The weed has been used as an emergency forage during drought, and is palatable when immature and non-toxic to livestock. Key words: Salsola tragus, Salsola pestifer, Salsola iberica, Salsola kali, Russian thistle, weed biology

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 score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207