MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105459748 · doi:10.4141/p02-056

The biology of Canadian weeds. 126. <i>Amaranthus albus</i> L., <i>A. blitoides</i> S. Watson and <i>A. blitum</i> L.

2003· article· en· W2105459748 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
M. Costea and F. J. Tardif

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Parasitism and Resistance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyWeedSubspeciesRuderal speciesBotanyTaxonomy (biology)GenusPlant ecologyEcologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review of biological information is provided for three species of the genus Amaranthus: A. albus L., A. blitoides S. Watson and A. blitum L. The last species has been revised taxonomically and a new subspecies for Canada is presented-A. blitum subsp. emarginatus (Moq. ex Uline &amp; Bray) Carretero, Munoz Garmendia &amp; Pedrol. Amaranthus albus and A. blitoides are native to the U.S.A. and introduced to Canada. Both species are annual ruderal and agrestal weeds. During the past 100 yr the two species have spread across most provinces of Canada, but the greatest frequency and abundance have been recorded in Saskatchewan. Originating from Europe, Asia and North Africa, A. blitum was initially considered a non-persistent species. The present study shows that A. blitum especially, subsp. emarginatus, has continued to spread in Québec. The three species are alternate hosts to many insects, nematodes, viruses, bacteria and fungi that affect cultivated plants. In other areas (U.S.A., Europe and Asia), the three species have developed multiple resistance to triazine and acetolactate-synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Key words: Amaranthus albus, Amaranthus blitoides, Amaranthus blitum, weed biology, ecology, taxonomy, herbicide resistance

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations27
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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