MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175871321 · doi:10.4141/cjps2013-204

Survey of glyphosate-resistant kochia (<i>Kochia scoparia</i> L. Schrad.) in Alberta

2013· article· en· W2175871321 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Linda M. Hall, Hugh J. Beckie, Ryan Low, Scott W. Shirriff, Robert E. Blackshaw, Nicole Kimmel, Christoph Neeser

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopariaGlyphosateWeedBiologyAgronomyPopulationAcetolactate synthaseGermination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hall, L. M., Beckie, H. J., Low, R., Shirriff, S. W., Blackshaw, R. E., Kimmel, N. and Neeser, C. 2014. Survey of glyphosate-resistant kochia ( Kochia scoparia L. Schrad.) in Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 127–130. Glyphosate-resistant (GR) kochia was identified in Warner county in southern Alberta in 2011. To determine the scale of the distribution and frequency of GR kochia, a randomized stratified survey of more than 300 locations (one population per location) in southern Alberta was conducted in the fall of 2012. Mature plants were collected, seed separated, and F 1 seedlings screened by spraying with glyphosate at 900 g a.e. ha −1 under greenhouse conditions. Screening confirmed 13 GR kochia sites: seven in Warner county, five in Vulcan county, and one in Taber county. The frequency of GR individuals in a population ranged from 0.3 to 98%. GR kochia were found in arid areas where chemical fallow is a significant component of the rotation. Economic and agronomic impact of this GR weed biotype is compounded because of multiple resistance to acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides.

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)0.001
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 score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations45
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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