Optimal planting date, row width, and critical weed-free period for grain amaranth and quinoa grown in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The popularity of grain amaranth and quinoa is growing in Ontario, increasing the interest in their cultivation. Two experiments were conducted in southern Ontario in 2013 and 2014 to evaluate optimal planting date (every two weeks from early May to late July), row width (38 or 75 cm), and critical weed-free period (the component of the critical period of weed control that defines the number of days that the crop must remain weed-free to prevent yield loss) in each crop. Grain amaranth and quinoa both reached physiological maturity and produced yields when planting dates ranged from mid-May to late-June. When either crop was seeded in July, yields decreased by more than 50% and the crop did not always reach maturity before the first frost. While row width did not have an impact on yield, it is advisable to grow the crops in wider rows (75 cm) to facilitate weed control early in the growing season (up to 30 d after emergence (DAE)). The critical weed-free period was 24 and 16 DAE for grain amaranth and quinoa, respectively, after which yields were maintained at 95% of the weed-free control. Based on these data, both crops could easily be integrated into the normal cropping rotations found in southern Ontario.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".