MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269184453 · doi:10.4236/ajps.2016.71007

Influence of Herbicide Carrier on the Tolerance of White Bean to Preplant Incorporated and Preemergence Herbicides

2016· article· en· W2269184453 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nader Soltani, Christy Shropshire, Peter H. Sikkema

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Plant Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAgricultural Adaptation Council
KeywordsPendimethalinShootAgronomyDry beanDry weightHerbicide resistanceWater contentBiologyHorticultureWeed controlCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nine field trials (five with PPI and four with PRE herbicides) were conducted at Exeter and Ridgetown, Ontario during 2013 to 2015 to determine if the tolerance of white bean to preplant incorporated (PPI) and preemergence (PRE) herbicides is influenced by the herbicide carrier (water vs. UAN at 200 L•ha-1). There was no significant interaction between the carrier and herbicide for visible injury, plant stand, plant height, shoot dry weight, seed moisture content and yield. There was also no significant difference between the herbicide carriers for all parameters measured except for the shoot dry weight which was 6.5% greater when UAN was used as the carrier with PPI herbicides. Dimethenamid-p, pendimethalin, imazethapyr and halosulfuron applied PPI or PRE caused no visible injury except for imazethapyr PPI which caused 2% visible injury and dimethenamid-p PRE which caused 7% - 14% injury in white bean. There was no effect of the PPI and PRE herbicides evaluated on white bean stand, shoot dry weight, height, maturity and yield. Based on these results, using water or UAN could be used as the carrier for PPI and PRE herbicides in white bean.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207