MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909096082

Clipping weeds above crop canopy reduces subsequent seedling recruitment

2002· article· en· W2909096082 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eric N. Johnson, G. Hultgreen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsSeedlingCanopyAgronomyClipping (morphology)CropWeedPlant canopyAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceBiologyBotany
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Weed control is a challenge for organic growers. Organic producers rely on crop rotation, cultural practices, and mechanical weed control to control weeds. Some organic producers have experimented with clipping weeds above the canopy of short stature crops such as lentil or flax. A project was initiated in 1999 to develop or modify equipment for weed clipping and to evaluate whether the practice improved crop yield and/or reduced weed seedling recruitment the following growing season. At Scott, a field experiment was conducted over two years where clipping at various stages of weed development was evaluated. The clipping was done above a lentil crop canopy with a gas-powered hedge trimmer. The Prairie Agriculture Machinery Institute at Humboldt modified the cutting component of a self-propelled swather and carried out field trials on four farmer’s fields.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.142 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207