MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2210197920

뽕밭에서 발생하는 잡초 양상

2015· article· ko· W2210197920 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
이인용, 김창석, 송희근, 서현아, 최경미, 지상덕

Bibliographic record

VenueWeed & Turfgrass Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEcology and Conservation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigitaria sanguinalisWeedBiologyChenopodiumBotanyEchinochloaHorticultureAgronomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The weed flora in the mulberry fields were investigated in Suwon, Jeonju, and Buan in May, July, and September of 2014. The objectives of this study were to use the survey data for establishing weed control methods and to bring awareness of possible problematic weeds in the Korean mulberry fields. The survey was conducted in 53 regions, covering approximately 145,925 m2. Altogether 153 weed species of 37 families were identified, of which 68 were annual, 39 species were biennial and 46 were perennial. The dominance was the highest with Digitaria ciliaris followed by Erigeron annuus, Chenopodium album, Echinochloa crus-galli var. crus-galli, Acalypha australis, Commelina communis etc. Exotic weeds presented 44 species with 28.8% of a total presence, of which Erigeron annuus was the highest, followed by Chenopodium album, Phytolacca americana, Conyza canadensis, Oxalis corymbosa etc. Especially, we should aware Senecio vulgaris, not controlled with glufosinate ammonium SL in the Korean mulberry fields because it was known as atrazine resistance in US, Canada, Germany etc. In the PCA plot, weeds presented in the mulberry fields were divided into two groups, Eclipta prostrata community and Stellaria aquatic community and weed flora of Suwon and Buan were different due to those only presented in Suwon.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeed & Turfgrass ScienceSame topicEcology and Conservation StudiesFrench-language works237,207