MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054985443 · doi:10.1614/wt-04-276.1

A Common Ragweed (<i>Ambrosia artemisiifolia</i>) Biotype in Southwestern Québec Resistant to Linuron

2005· article· en· W2054985443 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sophie Saint-Louis, Antonio DiTommaso, Alan K. Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAllelopathy and phytotoxic interactions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRagweedAmbrosia artemisiifoliaBiologyHerbicide resistanceReproductionAtrazineAmbrosiaCross-resistanceHorticultureAgronomyToxicologyBotanyPesticideWeedEcologyMicrobiologyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The degree of resistance to linuron of a common ragweed biotype was investigated. Suspected linuron-resistant plants collected from a carrot field near Sherrington, Québec, were subjected to increasing rates of linuron under glasshouse conditions. Resistance to linuron of the common ragweed biotype was suspected because 33% of plants survived to reproduction after they were sprayed at a rate of 4.5 kg ai/ha, two times the dose rate recommended for linuron in carrots, and also because 3% of plants survived to reproduction after they were sprayed at a rate of 22.5 kg ai/ ha, 10 times the recommended dose. Susceptible plants collected from a field with no prior history of linuron use were all killed when sprayed at the lowest dose rate recommended, 1.125 kg ai/ha. The herbicide-resistance ratio was 29.0 for linuron, and for cross-resistance to atrazine, the ratio was 1.3, indicating that these plants exhibit greater resistance to linuron than to atrazine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed TechnologySame topicAllelopathy and phytotoxic interactionsFrench-language works237,207