MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109173895

Effect of repetitive mowing on common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) pollen and seed production.

2011· article· en· W2109173895 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie‐Josée Simard, Diane L. Benoît

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbrosia artemisiifoliaPollenRagweedBiologyAnthesisWeedAgronomyAnnual plantGroundcoverAmbrosiaHorticultureBotany
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ambrosia artemisiifolia L (common ragweed) is a familiar roadside weed in southern Québec (Canada) that produces large amounts of airborne pollen responsible for multiple rhino-conjunctivitis (hay fever) cases. As roadside weeds are increasingly controlled by mowing alone, the effect of a mowing treatment on pollen production was evaluated. Ambrosia artemisiifolia plants were grown in a greenhouse at 4 densities (1, 3, 6 and 12 plants per 314 cm(2) pot) and either left intact or mowed (10 cm from the ground) when the plants reached 25 cm in height, i.e. twice during the life cycle of this annual plant. Pollen production per male inflorescence was collected in open-top bags and counted. Inflorescence mass, length, location on the plant and date of anthesis onset was noted. Above-ground plant biomass and seed production was also evaluated. Mowed plants produced less pollen per unit of inflorescence length than intact plants. Pollen production per plant was reduced by a factor of 8.84 by the double mowing treatment, while viable seed production per plant was reduced by a factor of 4.66, irrespective of density. Mowing twice has the potential to reduce airborne pollen loads but Ambrosia artemisiifolia seed banks are unlikely to be depleted by this management strategy.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207