MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101472025 · doi:10.1614/wt-03-088r

Ground Ivy (<i>Glechoma hederacea</i>) Populations Respond Differently to 2,4-D or Triclopyr

2004· article· en· W2101472025 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. Köhler, Clark S. Throssell, Zachary J. Reicher

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriclopyrBiologyEcotypePopulationWeedAgronomyPerennial plantPetiole (insect anatomy)GlyphosateBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground ivy is an invasive, perennial, broadleaf weed common in turf sites. A recent survey of lawn care professionals suggests ground ivy populations respond differently to herbicides. Our study was conducted to determine the variation in response among and within ground ivy populations to 2,4-D or triclopyr application. Ground ivy populations were sampled from nine sites in the United States and Canada. Leaf width, petiole length, and internode length varied by population by as much as 31, 36, and 45%, respectively. In a greenhouse study, applying 4.5 kg/ha 2,4-D or 0.9 kg/ha triclopyr to all populations resulted in a phytotoxic response that varied according to population by as much as 47% for 2,4-D and 31% for triclopyr. Random-amplified polymorphic DNA analysis identified 52 genotypes in the nine populations, and these genotypes varied in response to 2,4-D application in some populations. Difficulty in control of ground ivy with 2,4-D or triclopyr may be because of the presence of ecotypes and biotypes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed TechnologySame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207