Calibration and validation of a common lambsquarters (<i>Chenopodium album</i>) seedling emergence model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies were conducted to calibrate and validate a mathematical model previously developed to predict common lambsquarters seedling emergence at different corn seedbed preparation times. The model was calibrated for different types of soil by adjusting the base temperature of common lambsquarters seedling emergence to the soil texture. A relationship was established with the sand mineral fraction of the soil and was integrated into the model. The calibrated model provided a good fit of the field data and was accurate in predicting cumulative weed emergence in different soil types. The validation was done using data collected independently at a site located 80 km from the original experimental area. There were no differences between observed and predicted values. The accuracy of the model is very satisfactory because the emergence of common lambsquarters populations was accurately predicted at the 95% probability level. This model is one of the first to take into consideration seedbed preparation time and soil texture. This common lambsquarters emergence model could be adapted to model other weed species whose emergence is limited by low spring temperature.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it