MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074874395 · doi:10.4141/p99-175

Comparison of weed communities in Manitoba ecoregions and crops

2000· article· en· W2074874395 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Rene C. Van Acker, A. G. Thomas, Julia Y. Leeson, Stevan Z. Knežević, B. Frick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeedAvena fatuaCirsium arvenseSetaria viridisBiologyNoxious weedFoxtailGaliumAmbrosia artemisiifoliaAgronomyChenopodiumPolygonaceaeSetariaEchinochloaConvolvulusBotanyRagweed

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1997, a weed survey was conducted during July and August in fields of wheat, barley, oat, canola and flax in Manitoba. Field selection was based on a stratified-random sampling methodology using ecodistricts as strata. Species in the Poaceae family were most commonly observed in the survey, followed by species in the Polygonaceae, Asteraceae and Brassicaceae families. The six most abundant weed species were green foxtail [Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.], wild oats (Avena fatua L.), wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus L.), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense L.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.). The survey highlighted significant differences between ecoregions and between crops in residual weed infestations. The weed community in the Boreal Transition ecoregion was dominated by seven species, whereas fields in the Aspen Parkland and Lake Manitoba Plain ecoregions were dominated by two species and the Interlake Plain ecoregion was dominated by only one species. Although significant differences were found between the weed communities in crops, they were not as great as differences between ecoregions. The Manitoba residual weed community in 1997 was very similar to that reported for 1978–1981 and 1986, suggesting that the same species should remain a focus for weed management. Key words: Weed survey, weed relative abundance, weed distributions, Manitoba ecoregions

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations30
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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