MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097711589 · doi:10.1614/ipsm-08-142.1

Cool-Season Turfgrass Survival on Two Former Golf Courses in Michigan

2009· article· en· W2097711589 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark A. Garrison, John C. Stier, John N. Rogers, Alec R. Kowalewski

Bibliographic record

VenueInvasive Plant Science and Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersColgate University
KeywordsInvasive speciesQuadratHerbaceous plantAgronomyBiologyTransectPoa annuaRevegetationMonocultureGrowing seasonGeographyEcologyPoaceaeEcological succession

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Most turfgrass species have been listed as either invasive or potentially invasive species in the U.S., but few data exist to verify their invasiveness. Our objective was to determine cool-season turfgrass survival on two abandoned golf courses to assess their invasive potential in unmanaged sites. Maintenance operations ceased at Matheson Greens Golf Course in 2000 and at Four Winds Golf Course in 2003. The frequency and abundance of creeping bentgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and fine fescues in quadrats placed along transects were recorded and compared to other cover such as herbaceous dicots and bare soil in 2005 and 2007. Turfgrasses at both courses were unable to maintain monocultures. All turfgrasses were nearly absent from Matheson Greens Golf Course 5 yr after maintenance operations ceased. At the Four Winds Golf Course site, creeping bentgrass comprised less than 25% cover on former putting greens by 2007, and was rarely found outside of the former putting green areas. Kentucky bluegrass cover ranged from 5 to 75% on the former fairways. Herbaceous dicots usually dominated the former turf areas at both sites, and included noxious weeds such as Canada thistle and invasive weeds such as spotted knapweed.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvasive Plant Science and ManagementSame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207