MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805903307 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n7p383

Efficacy of Irradiated Glyphosate Against Brachiaria plantaginea L.

2018· article· en· W2805903307 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
André Ricardo Machi, Luiz S. Ferrari, Valter Arthur

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlyphosateBrachiariaIrradiationWeedSeedlingWeed controlBiologyGamma irradiationAgronomyChemistryHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glyphosate irradiated with cobalt-60 type Gammacell 220 at different rates was sprayed on seedlings of Brachiaria plantaginea L., a common weed, grown in pots (one seedling with 3-4 leaves in each pot), at different concentrations equivalent to 1 L h-1 or 3 L h-1. Each sample containing 40 ml of the product (glyphosate) taken to a source of Cobalt-60 type Gammacell 220, under a dose rate of 0.312 kGy/hour in doses of: T0, control (water instead of glyphosate); T1, glyphosate at 1.0 L h-1; T2, glyphosate at 3.0 L h-1; T3, glyphosate irradiated at 250 Gy at 1.0 L h-1; T4, glyphosate irradiated at 500 Gy at 1.0 L h-1; T5, glyphosate irradiated at 750 Gy at 1.0 L h-1; and T6, glyphosate irradiated at 1000 Gy at 1.0 L h-1. The effects were assessed in terms of the extent of injury, where scale of 0% (no visible injury) to 100% (plant dead), number of tillers, weed survival and dry biomass produced by the plants. The most effective treatment was glyphosate irradiated at 250 Gy h-1 and applied at 1.0 L h-1. It is important to know that gamma radiation in glyphosate herbicide can be used without antagonistic interactions without cause resistance.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207