MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035705379 · doi:10.4236/ajps.2014.518285

Linuron Biologically Effective Dose for Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed (<i>Ambrosia trifida</i> L.) Control in Soybean (<i>Glycine max</i> L.)

2014· article· en· W2035705379 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kimberly D. Walsh, Nader Soltani, Lynette R. Brown, Peter H. Sikkema

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Plant Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersGrain Farmers of Ontario
KeywordsRagweedGlyphosateGlycineDry weightAnimal scienceBiologyAgronomyHorticultureBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) was first identified in Canada in 2008 and has since been found throughout southwestern Ontario. Six field trials were conducted over a two-year period (2012, 2013) on Ontario farms with GR giant ragweed to evaluate the efficacy of linuron applied pre-plant (PP) in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). The dose required for 50%, 80%, and 95% GR giant ragweed control was 1238, 2959, and 6018 g·ai·ha-1 four weeks after application (WAA), respectively. The linuron dose needed for 50%, 80%, and 95% reduction in density was 1554, 3181, and 5643 g·ai·ha-1 and 1204, 2496, and 4452 g·ai·ha-1 for dry weight, respectively. Application of 7874 g·ai·ha-1 linuron was needed to obtain soybean yields that were 90% of the weed-free control; approximately 3.5 times the maximum field recommended dose. To achieve 95% and 98% yields, greater than 8640 g·ai·ha-1 linuron was required. Application of linuron plus glyphosate PP in soybean will help to control GR giant ragweed as well as reduce GR selection pressure.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 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
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207