MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595154735

Persistence of Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe L.) in Restored Native Plant Communities at the Bass River Recreation Area, Ottawa County, Michigan

2016· article· en· W2595154735 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kaitlyn Emelander

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks - GVSU (Grand Valley State University) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBass (fish)RecreationPersistence (discontinuity)Invasive speciesNative plantEcologyFisheryPlant communityGeographyBiologyIntroduced speciesEcological succession
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasive species, such as spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe L.), impose a huge threat to the reestablishment of native plant communities on degraded sites across the Midwestern United States. Twelve treatment combinations and their effects on densities of all life stages of knapweed have been studied in the Bass River Recreation Area, Ottawa County, Michigan since 2008. Treatments included site preparation by either mowing or mowing with herbicide applications, followed by seeding of native grasses and forbs. Additional treatments included annual burning or hand-pulling of mature knapweed. Knapweed densities in the seedbank, seedling, juvenile and adult stages were sampled on the 48 plots in 2015. The effects of treatments varied among the life stages of knapweed, but all treatments have reduced knapweed densities in comparison to untreated plots. Burning and hand-pulling treatments both significantly decreased adult densities, but only hand-pulling had significant impacts on the other three life stages. Burning effects have been slow to develop, and it is likely that continued burning treatments will also decrease knapweed densities at all life stages, and encourage the growth of native vegetation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks - GVSU (Grand Valley State University)Same topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207