MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117642825 · doi:10.1614/wt-07-175.1

Weed Resistance Monitoring in the Canadian Prairies

2008· article· en· W2117642825 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hugh J. Beckie, Julia Y. Leeson, A. Gordon Thomas, Clark A. Brenzil, Linda M. Hall, G. Holzgang, Chris Lozinski, Scott W. Shirriff

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSaskatchewan Ministry of AgricultureAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsFoxtailWeedAcetolactate synthaseBiologyLambsquartersWeed controlHerbicide resistanceAgronomyResistance (ecology)ChenopodiumVeterinary medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Weed resistance monitoring has been routinely conducted in the Northern Great Plains of Canada (Prairies) since the mid-1990s. Most recently, random surveys were conducted in Alberta in 2001, Manitoba in 2002, and Saskatchewan in 2003 totaling nearly 800 fields. In addition, nearly 1,300 weed seed samples were submitted by growers across the Prairies between 1996 and 2006 for resistance testing. Collected or submitted samples were screened for group 1 [acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitor] and/or group 2 [acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor] resistance. Twenty percent of 565 sampled fields had an herbicide-resistant (HR) wild oat biotype. Most populations exhibited broad cross-resistance across various classes of group 1 or group 2 herbicides. In Manitoba, 22% of 59 fields had group 1–HR green foxtail. Group 2–HR biotypes of kochia were documented in Saskatchewan, common chickweed and spiny sowthistle in Alberta, and green foxtail and redroot pigweed in Manitoba. Across the Prairies, HR weeds are estimated to occur in fields covering an area of nearly 5 million ha. Of 1,067 wild oat seed samples submitted by growers and industry for testing between 1996 and 2006, 725 were group 1 HR, 34 group 2 HR, and 55 groups 1 and 2 HR. Of 80 submitted green foxtail samples, 26 were confirmed group 1 HR; most populations originated from southern Manitoba where the weed is most abundant. Similar to the field surveys, various group 2–HR biotypes were confirmed among submitted samples: kochia, wild mustard, field pennycress,Galiumspp., common chickweed, and common hempnettle. Information from grower questionnaires indicates patterns of herbicide usage are related to location, changing with cropping system. Two herbicide modes of action most prone to select resistance, groups 1 and 2, continue to be widely and repeatedly used. There is little evidence that growers are aware of the level of resistance within their fields, but a majority have adopted herbicide rotations to proactively or reactively manage HR weeds.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations42
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed TechnologySame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207