MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054281051 · doi:10.4141/p02-076

The biology of Canadian weeds. 120. <i>Neslia paniculata</i> (L.) Desv.

2003· article· en· W2054281051 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
A. Francis, Suzanne I. Warwick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBiological Control of Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsWeedBiologyCanolaAgronomyAcetolactate synthaseBromoxynilWeed controlTemperate climatePopulationBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review of biological information is provided for Neslia paniculata. Native to central Eurasia, this species is naturalized in other temperate regions of the northern hemisphere. In North America it is most abundant in Canada’s prairie provinces, but has spread west and north to British Columbia, Alaska, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, and to scattered locations in eastern Canada and the northern United States. It is typically a summer annual weed of disturbed soils. Its growth habit and persistence in the seed bank have enabled it to spread as an adventive and to maintain its presence in cultivated areas. While it is present in relatively low frequency as a weed in most crops, its indehiscent seed pods can contaminate harvested crops and spread in seed commodities. The small size of its seed pods and the similarity of its seeds to those of canola and condiment mustard have led to its regulation as a significant contaminant of commercial seed. It is generally well controlled by herbicides (e.g., sulfonylureas, glyphosate, MCPA, bromoxynil, and 2, 4-D); however, a population resistant to metsulfuron-methyl, one of the Group 2 herbicides that inhibit acetolactate synthase (ALS), was found at a site in Alberta in 1998. Key words: Ball mustard, Neslia paniculata, weed biology, herbicide resistance, seed contaminant

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicBiological Control of Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207