MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129038371 · doi:10.4141/cjps10009

Volunteer wheat (<i>Triticum aestivum</i> L.) competition in corn (<i>Zea mays</i> L.)

2010· article· en· W2129038371 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
G. C. Wilson, Nader Soltani, Clarence J. Swanton, F. Tardif, D.E. Robinson, Peter H. Sikkema

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsGrain Farmers of Ontario
KeywordsVolunteerAgronomySowingCompetition (biology)Zea maysWeedBiologyWinter wheatCultivarShootPoaceaeDry weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volunteer winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is a sporadic weed found in corn (Zea mays L.) fields across southern Ontario. Eight trials were conducted over a 2-yr period (2006 and 2007) at four locations to determine the competitiveness of volunteer winter wheat in corn. A soft red winter wheat cultivar (Pioneer 25R47) was seeded at each location at densities of 0 to 30 seeds m-2 late in the fall, prior to corn planting the following spring. Volunteer wheat competition in corn resulted in reduced emergence of corn leaf collars. Competition with volunteer wheat resulted in a 5% decrease in corn leaf collars present at 21 and 70 d after emergence with volunteer wheat densities of 3.0 and 5.2 plants m-2, respectively. Furthermore, volunteer wheat competition reduced total leaf area, leaf dry weight, shoot dry weight, plant and ear height and yield by 5% with densities of 5.1 to 6.0 plants m-2 compared with the weed-free control. The level of competitiveness was dependent on the density of volunteer wheat.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207