MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799600444 · doi:10.7939/r3js7d

Biology and control of Russian thistle (Salsola tragus L.) in bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis Shaw) winter ranges in montane grasslands of Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada

2010· article· en· W2799600444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy Antill

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and fungal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvis canadensisThistleMontane ecologyNational parkGeographyOvisEcologyForestryBiologyArchaeologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Russian thistle (Salsola tragus L.) invaded areas of native montane grassland important to winter survival of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis Shaw) were studied in Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada. The biology of Russian thistle and its control in the Park were studied in the field and greenhouse. Russian thistle in grasslands were 9.1 cm tall with 37.5 seeds per plant, whereas larger plants in naturally disturbed habitats were 29.8 cm tall with 1562.4 seeds per plant. Plants travelled up to 4,180 m during dispersal. With soil seed contact, litter depth did not inhibit performance or survivability; without soil contact, thick litter reduced germination and plant performance. Russian thistle responded positively to increased greenhouse temperature and drier conditions. Seven control treatments involving herbicide, seeding mixes, hand pulling, and grazing exclusion were assessed. Grazing exclusion was the best field management option, increasing litter and biomass, while reducing Russian thistle density and biomass.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicPlant and fungal interactionsFrench-language works237,207