MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134852789 · doi:10.4141/p02-112

The biology of Canadian weeds. 128. Leucanthemum vulgare Lam.

2004· article· en· W2134852789 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
David R. Cléments, Dan Cole, J. M. King, A. S. McClay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyNoxious weedWeedPerennial plantBotanyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leucanthemum vulgare Lam. (Asteraceae), known as ox-eye daisy, is a familiar perennial herb with white ray florets and yellow disc florets. It commonly inhabits roadside ver ges, pastures and old fields from Newfoundland to British Columbia, and also as far north as the Yukon Territory. Introduced from Europe, L. vulgare was well established in North America by 1800. The Canadian distribution of L. vulgare has expanded in many areas recently, particularly in western Canada. It can form dense populations that may reduce diversity of natural vegetation or pasture quality, and also serves as a host and reservoir for several species of polyphagous gall-forming Meloidogyne nematodes that feed on crops. It is considered a noxious weed under provincial legislation in Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, as well as under the Canada Seeds Act. Control efforts are sometimes complicated by difficulties in distinguishing ox-eye daisy from some forms of the commercially available Shasta daisy ( L. × superbum).

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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations30
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207