Variation in Field Pea (<i>Pisum sativum</i>) Cultivars for Basal Branching and Weed Competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field pea cultivars often differ in weed competition. In several crop types branching has been cited as one of the characteristics conferring competition with weeds. The objective of this study was to determine the difference in weed competition among field pea cultivars differing in basal branching and other characteristics. Ten field pea cultivars with divergent basal branching ability were seeded at 50 plants m−2under weedy and weed-free conditions to evaluate their competition with weeds. Branching did not differ greatly between cultivars and was not associated with the weed competiveness of the field pea cultivars. The forage pea cultivars, which were leafed and had longer vines, were much more competitive than the semi-leafless grain cultivars. As a result, the forage cultivars were better able to suppress weeds and maintain their yield under weed presence. However, the absolute seed yield of the forage pea cultivars was low, making them a poor choice for seed production. Vine length and the leafy characteristic may be important genetic characteristics associated with competition in field pea cultivars.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".