MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Response of black, cranberry, kidney, and white bean to linuron

2009· article· en· W2040246457 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Peter H. Sikkema, Sharareh Hekmat, Christy Shropshire, Nader Soltani

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Biology and Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsDry beanBiologyPinto beanCropHorticultureAgronomyPhaseolus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dry bean producers in Ontario, Canada, have few herbicide options available for annual broad‐leaved weed management and there is little information on the tolerance of dry bean to linuron. The tolerance of black, cranberry, kidney, and white bean to the pre‐emergence (PRE) application of linuron at the rates of 0, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, and 2500 g ai ha −1 was evaluated in field studies conducted in 2005 and 2006 at Exeter and in 2006 at Ridgetown, Ontario. The four market classes differed in their response to linuron. Cranberry and kidney bean were more tolerant to the PRE application of linuron than black and white bean. Linuron applied PRE caused as much as 12% injury in cranberry and kidney bean, 47% injury in black bean, and 56% injury in white bean. Linuron applied PRE at 500–2500 g ai ha −1 had no effect on the height of cranberry and kidney bean but decreased the height by 7, 8, and 15% in black bean and by 10, 13, and 23% in white bean at 1500, 2000, and 2500 g ai ha −1 , respectively. Linuron applied PRE at the rates evaluated did not cause any adverse affect on the yield of cranberry, kidney, and white bean but black bean yield was reduced by 16% at 2500 g ai ha −1 . Based on these results, there is not an adequate margin of crop safety for the PRE application of linuron in black and white bean at rates >1000 g ai ha −1 . However, there is a potential for the use of linuron PRE for weed management in cranberry and kidney bean at the rates evaluated.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

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 head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed Biology and ManagementSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207