MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548514974 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2015-0152

The Biology of Canadian Weeds: 155. <i>Panicum miliaceum</i> L.

2016· article· en· W2548514974 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Paul B. Cavers, Marguerite Kane

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPanicum miliaceumPanicumAgronomyBiologyBromusCropWeedPoaceaeForageNoxious weedGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. (Poaceae), has been a crop in Asia and Europe for 10 000 years and for over 300 years in Canada, where it is grown for grain, rescue crops, birdseed, forage, and recently for swath grazing. Crop-like biotypes have escaped from cultivation throughout Canada, but these infestations were generally temporary. Probably the first persistent, weedy biotype in Canada (Quebec) has large, dormant, dark red seeds. Its eradication has been attempted for many years. In the 1970s, a worse problem, a black-seeded biotype with many weedy attributes, including shattering as seeds ripen and strongly dormant seeds distasteful to many birds, spread across southern Ontario and became labelled as noxious. Concurrently, it was described as the worst weed in the US Corn Belt. In the 1980s, Canadian studies revealed infestations of other weedy biotypes, differing in seed colour and other attributes. Panicum miliaceum is an extremely variable species world-wide. Since the late 1990s, weedy proso millet has declined dramatically after the adoption of newer herbicides, particularly glyphosate. This development may lead to increases in cultivated proso millet, especially where climate change favours short-season crops grown under drier conditions.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207