MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2276965169

Studying Geographical Distribution Map of Weeds of Irrigated Wheat Fields of Ardabil Province

2013· article· en· W2276965169 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bita Soheili

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCassava research and cyanide
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistribution (mathematics)GeographyAgronomyBiologyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to identify the density and abundance of weeds in irrigated wheat fields of Ardabil Province, 76 samples of irrigated wheat fields based on cultivation area from all counties of Ardabil province for six years (2001-2006) were selected. The genus and species of weeds from each sampling fields and their population indices density, frequency and uniformity of each species were calculated by using Thomas method. Geographic coordinates of field (Latitude, Altitude and Elevation) were the main coverage and were determined by using GPS. These data were used for producing weed maps using GIS in irrigated wheat fields of Ardabil province. Results showed that bedstraw (Galium tricurnatum), Fumitory(Fumaria vaillanti)and wildradish (Raphanus raphanistrum) were dominant broad leaf weed species and wild oats (Avena fatua), rye (Secale cereal) and mouse foxtail(Alopecurus myosuroides) dominant grassy weeds species in irrigated wheat fields of Ardabil province. Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Canada thistle(Cirsium arvense)and Acroptilon repens were the most important disturbing plants prior to harvesting in irrigated wheat fields of Ardabil province.

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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicCassava research and cyanideFrench-language works237,207