MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069247097 · doi:10.1614/ws-d-13-00062.1

Experimental Methods for Crop–Weed Competition Studies

2015· article· en· W2069247097 on OpenAlexaff
Clarence J. Swanton, Roger Nkoa, Robert E. Blackshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeedCompetition (biology)Liberian dollarCropUs dollarWeed controlAgricultural economicsWeed scienceAgroforestryAgronomyEconomicsAgricultural scienceEnvironmental scienceBusinessBiologyEcologyExchange rateFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The annual global economic loss caused by weeds has been estimated at more than $100 billion U.S. dollars (Appleby et al. 2000). Additionally, worldwide annual herbicide sales are in the range of U.S. $25 billion (Agrow 2003). In light of these large dollar figures, it becomes clear that a greater understanding of crop—weed interactions is essential in order to develop cost-effective and sustainable weed management practices.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1070.044

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations210
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed ScienceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207