MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036109685 · doi:10.4141/p01-152

The biology of Canadian weeds. 121. <i>Galium mollugo</i> L.

2003· article· en· W2036109685 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
D. Mersereau, Antonio DiTommaso

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsGaliumBiologyDactylis glomerataLotus corniculatusPhleumWeedBotanyAgronomyDicambaOrchardPerennial plantRed CloverVicia villosaWeed controlPoaceaeCover crop

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Galium mollugo L. (smooth bedstraw) is a long-lived perennial broadleaved plant that reproduces both vegetatively and by seed. Galium mollugo can be a strong competitor in long-lived forage crops such as bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.), timothy (Phleum pratense L.), and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata L.), as well as in short-lived forage crops such as red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) and yellow sweet-clover [Melilotus officinalis (L.) Lam.]. It is also a problem weed in spruce plantations and re-vegetation areas. Livestock typically avoid this species, allowing it to become well-established in pastures where it outcompetes more favourable species. Moreover, G. mollugo is viewed as a successful invasive species because of its ability to colonize and proliferate in areas such as established meadows where most invasive species do not thrive. In natural meadow communities, G. mollugo is often a dominant species that is capable of colonizing areas left vacant by the death and/or displacement of other species. Under favourable conditions, G. mollugo growth and clonal expansion can increase rapidly. Galium mollugo is generally tolerant to herbicides such as 2,4-D, MCPA, 2,4-DB, and dicamba. Key words: Smooth bedstraw, GALMO, Galium mollugo, Rubiaceae, weed biology, pastures

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207