Response of Dry Bean to Sulfentrazone Plus Imazethapyr
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field studies were conducted in 2010 and 2011 at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario and from 2009 to 2011 at the University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario to evaluate the sensitivity of four market classes of dry bean to sulfentrazone applied preemergence at 105, 140, and 280 g ai/ha alone and in combination with imazethapyr at 37.5 g ai/ha. At 1 week after emergence (WAE), sulfentrazone alone or in combination with imazethapyr at all doses evaluated caused no significant visible injury in dry bean. At 2 WAE, sulfentrazone alone caused 1–11, 1–11, 1–5, and 3–19% visible injury, and sulfentrazone + imazethapyr caused 3–11, 2–10, 2–5, and 4–20% visible injury in black, cranberry, kidney, and white bean, respectively. At 4 WAE, sulfentrazone alone caused 1–7, 1–7, 0–4, and 1–16% visible injury and sulfentrazone + imazethapyr caused 1–8, 1–5, 1–3, and 2–14% visible injury in black, cranberry, kidney, and white bean, respectively. Sulfentrazone PRE caused slightly greater injury in black and white bean compared to cranberry and kidney bean. Generally, crop injury with sulfentrazone at rates up to 140 g ai/ha alone and in combination with imazethapyr at 37.5 g ai/ha was minimal with no adverse effect on plant height, shoot dry weight, seed moisture content, and yield. Based on these results, there is potential for preemergence application of sulfentrazone at rates up to 140 g ai/ha alone or in combination with imazethapyr at 37.5 g ai/ha in black, cranberry, kidney and white bean.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".