MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078410358 · doi:10.4141/p02-021

The biology of Canadian weeds. 119. <i>Cannabis sativa</i> L.

2003· article· en· W2078410358 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ernest Small, T. O. Pocock, Paul B. Cavers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Parasitism and Resistance
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersUniversity of Warwick
KeywordsRuderal speciesCannabis sativaWeedBiologyVegetation (pathology)AgricultureEcologyHabitatAgronomyGeographyAgroforestryBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cannabis sativa has been cultivated for millennia in Eurasia and for centuries in North America, as a source of a textile fibre, oilseed, and intoxicating drugs such as marijuana. Considerable literature is available on the agricultural and biological properties of these basic three cultigens, but relatively little is published on wild-growing plants of the species. Most weedy C. sativa differ from the cultigens in a number of ecological properties, particularly with regard to reproductive biology. The species is the classical example of a “camp follower” that is exceptionally adapted to the habitat conditions around settlements: rich, highly manured, moist soils, and open areas resulting from recent removal or disturbance of the vegetation. In Canada, spontaneous populations have been found in all provinces, but forms that have re-evolved wild adaptations are concentrated along the St. Lawrence and lower Great Lakes. The ruderal plants pose a minor weed problem to agriculture but a major problem to law enforcement, and decades of eradication have exterminated many of the naturalized populations in Canada. With the recent re-authorization of hemp cultivation in Canada, it is inevitable that there will be additional escapes and a reinvigoration of the ruderal phase of the species. Mechanical eradication for 2 or 3 yr is effective at destroying populations, and young plants are easily eliminated by herbicide applications. Key words: Cannabis sativa, hemp, marijuana, marihuana, weed, oilseed

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations59
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Parasitism and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207