MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254027842 · doi:10.1614/ipsm-d-15-00037.1

Integrated Strategies for Management of Perennial Weeds

2016· article· en· W2254027842 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy W. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueInvasive Plant Science and Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerennial plantWeed controlVegetation (pathology)WeedAgroforestryEcologyAgronomyInvasive speciesBiologyGeographyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple weed control strategies employed in combination can often aid the successful management of perennial weed species. This review article provides examples of integrated control programs that could aid in the management of several invasive perennial weed species that are problematic in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere in North America. The development of an integrated management control program for wild chervil, a relatively recent invader to the Pacific Northwest of the United States and adjacent Canada, provides an example for this process. Through use of mechanical (mowing and tillage), cultural (establishment of competitive vegetation), and chemical (specific herbicides) strategies, control of this short-lived perennial species was greatly improved as compared to foliar herbicide applications alone. Such integrated strategies have been shown to enhance control of many perennial weed species, while potentially reducing the amount of herbicide applied, lessening the possibility of injury to adjacent desirable vegetation and increasing the stability of the ecological community at the site.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvasive Plant Science and ManagementSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207