MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121366701 · doi:10.1614/wt-08-055.1

Atrazine Accentuates Carryover Injury from Mesotrione in Vegetable Crops

2008· article· en· W2121366701 on OpenAlexaffabout
Darren E. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Disease Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMesotrioneAtrazineSowingAgronomyDry weightCropHorticultureBiologyPesticide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trials were established in 2003, 2004, and 2005 in Ontario to determine the effects of residues of mesotrione, atrazine, and mesotrione plus atrazine 1 and 2 yr after application on broccoli, carrot, cucumber, onion, and potato. One yr after mesotrione application, injury was 43, 37, 18, 24, and 0% in broccoli, carrot, cucumber, onion, and potato, respectively. The addition of atrazine to mesotrione in the year before planting increased injury to 55, 53, 30, 42, and 3% in broccoli, carrot, cucumber, onion, and potato, respectively. Plant dry weight and yield were also decreased by mesotrione residues the year after application in all crops except potato. The addition of atrazine to mesotrione accentuated the reduction in dry weight and yield in broccoli, carrot, cucumber, and onion. There was no injury, or reductions in dry weight or yield in any crop planted 2 yr after application of mesotrione alone or in tank mix with atrazine. A recropping interval of 2 yr is recommended following applications of mesotrione or mesotrione plus atrazine for broccoli, carrot, cucumber, and onion. Potato can be safely planted the year following application of mesotrione plus atrazine.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations42
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed TechnologySame topicPlant Disease Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207