MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911062501 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2018-0331

The presence of glyphosate in forest plants with different life strategies one year after application

2019· article· en· W2911062501 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lisa J. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsPositive Living North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlyphosateHerbaceous plantPerennial plantBiologyShootAminomethylphosphonic acidWoody plantAgronomyBotanyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persistent nonlethal doses of glyphosate in plant tissue may have implications for the edible and (or) medicinal use of native plants. This study investigated native plants growing in northern British Columbia, Canada, to determine glyphosate presence and location within tissue in select species of traditional-use value with different life strategies. Perennial herbaceous and woody plants were collected one year after forestry-based applications of glyphosate in the Peace River Region of British Columbia. Shoot, fruit, and root portions of select species were analyzed for glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) residues using HPLC–IPCMS. Glyphosate residues were found one-year after application. The highest and most consistent levels of glyphosate and AMPA were found in herbaceous perennial root tissues, but shoot tissues and fruit were also shown to contain glyphosate in select species. Levels found in some cases were greater than expected. Findings indicate the ability of glyphosate to be stored in root structures of perennial plants during dormancy periods and move up to shoot and fruit portions in years following applications in some species. Further investigation is required to determine the timeline associated with glyphosate presence in plant tissues.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207