MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062551071 · doi:10.4141/p01-067

Survey of herbicide-resistant wild oat (<i>Avena fatua</i>) in two townships in Saskatchewan

2002· article· en· W2062551071 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Hugh J. Beckie, A. G. Thomas, F. Craig Stevenson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsAvena fatuaHerbicide resistanceBiologyGrasslandAvenaAcetolactate synthaseWeedAgronomyResistance (ecology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nature and occurrence of herbicide resistance in wild oat in annual crops grown in the Grassland and Parkland regions of Saskatchewan were determined in a systematic survey of fields in two townships in 1997. The survey found that over one-half of fields in both townships had populations resistant to Group 1 [acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors], Group 2 [acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors], and/or Group 8 (e.g., triallate, difenzoquat) herbicides. Forty-three percent of fields in the Grassland township and 48% of fields in the Parkland township had Group 1-resistant (HR) wild oat; 30 and 17% of fields in the Grassland and Parkland township, respectively, had populations exhibiting Group 2 resistance, whereas about 15% of fields in both townships had Group 8-HR wild oat. Single- (Groups 1, 2, or 8) and multiple-group resistance (1, 2; 1, 8; 2, 8; 1, 2, 8) were exhibited in populations in fields in both townships. Frequency of occurrence of resistance was not generally affected by farm size. The nature of resistance in wild oat populations is more diverse, differences in distribution and abundance of HR wild oat biotypes between Grassland and Parkland regions are generally less apparent, and occurrence of resistance is more prevalent than documented previously. Key words: Avena fatua, herbicide resistance, survey

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)0.000
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 score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations28
Published2002
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207