MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065148971 · doi:10.4141/p01-028

Effect of post-emergence herbicide injury and planting date on yield of narrow-row soybean (<i>Glycine max</i>)

2002· article· en· W2065148971 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. A. Ivany, Jason Reddin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetribuzinBentazonSowingWeed controlAgronomyBiologyGlycineWeedYield (engineering)Horticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some herbicides used post-emergence (POST) in soybean production cause foliar injury; however, new growth is normal and the crop does not appear to be further affected. Experiments were conducted to determine the effect of different levels of foliar injury caused by POST herbicides on yield of soybean cv. Maple Glen when planted early and late in a weed-free environment. Level of foliar injury was variable from year to year. Aciflurofen and imazethapyr caused foliar injury of 7 to 35% whereas, thifensulfuron and bentazon gave foliar injury ranging from 0 to 20% at 15 d after treatment (DAT). Foliar injury was short lived, and by 30 DAT had disappeared in 1994 and 1997, but still was visible at 11% for aciflurofen and 17% with imazethapyr on late-planted soybean in 1995. Aciflurofen- and imazethapyr-treated soybeans were still stunted at 30 and 60 DAT. Only imazethapyr reduced yields on both early- and late-planted soybean, in the 3 yr of the study. Yield of Maple Glen soybean was higher with early-planted soybean than with late-planted soybean in all years. Maximum yields were obtained in control plots kept weed free all season by a pre-emergence application of metribuzin. Key words: Aciflurofen; bentazon; imazethapyr; metribuzin; thifensulfuron; stunting; delayed maturity; foliar injury

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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