MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585818263 · doi:10.1002/ps.4543

Our top 10 herbicide‐resistant weed management practices

2017· article· en· W2585818263 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePest Management Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeed controlWeedAgricultureAgroforestryRanking (information retrieval)Best practiceDiversity (politics)CropAgricultural scienceBiodiversityGeographyBusinessEnvironmental resource managementAgronomyBiotechnologyBiologyEcologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental scienceEconomicsComputer scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although proactive or reactive herbicide-resistant weed management (HRWM) practices have been recommended to growers in different agroecoregions globally, there is a need to identify and prioritise those having the most impact in mitigating or managing herbicide selection pressure in the northern Great Plains of North America. Our perspective on this issue is based on collaborative research, extension activities and dialogue with growers or farming experience (cereal, oilseed and pulse crop production) during the past 30 years. We list our top 10 HRWM practices, concluding with the number 1 practice which is the foundation of the other nine practices: crop diversity. Although our top 10 HRWM practices have broad applicability across agroecoregions, their ranking may vary widely. © 2017 Society of Chemical Industry.

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.260 · 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