MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2464630887 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.40.5.1381

Sweet Corn Hybrid Responses to Thifensulfuron-methyl

2005· article· en· W2464630887 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nader Soltani, Peter H. Sikkema, Darren E. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHybridCropZea maysYield (engineering)HorticultureWeed controlWeedAgronomyChemistryBiologyAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Limited information exists on sweet corn ( Zea mays ) tolerance to postemergence (POST) applications of thifensulfuron-methyl under Ontario growing conditions. Eight sweet corn hybrids were evaluated for tolerance to thifensulfuron-methyl in four field experiments conducted in 2003 and 2004. Thifensulfuron-methyl was applied POST at 6 and 12 g·ha –1 a.i., the registered and twice the registered rate for use in soybean in Ontario. Sweet corn hybrid responses to thifensulfuron-methyl varied. Delmonte 2038 was the most sensitive to thifensulfuron-methyl and had as much as 92% visual injury, 76% height reduction, and 98% yield reduction compared to the nontreated control. Empire, GH1861, GH2298, and GH2684 hybrids showed visual injury of 53%, 55%, 53%, and 61%, height reduction of 34%, 31%, 32%, and 26% and yield reduction of 77%, 68%, 68%, and 51%, respectively. GG214, GH2547, and GSS9299 sweet corn hybrids were not as sensitive to thifensulfuron-methyl. The initial sensitivity observed in these hybrids was minimal and transient with no effect on yield. Although thifensulfuron-methyl is safe for use on some sweet corn hybrids, it has the potential to cause severe crop injury and yield reduction in other hybrids and therefore it should not be recommended for weed management in sweet corn production in 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207