Efficacy of HPPD-inhibiting herbicides applied preemergence or postemergence for control of multiple herbicide resistant waterhemp [<i>Amaranthus tuberculatus</i> (Moq.) Sauer]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research was conducted in 2017 and 2018 to determine the relative efficacy of five HPPD-inhibitors, tank-mixed with atrazine, for the control of multiple herbicide resistant waterhemp. At 12 wk after application (WAA), isoxaflutole + atrazine, mesotrione + atrazine, and tembotrione + atrazine, applied preemergence (PRE), controlled waterhemp 90%, 87%, and 81%, respectively. None of the HPPD-inhibiting herbicides applied PRE controlled waterhemp similar to the weed-free control 12 WAA. Applied postemergence, topramezone + atrazine, mesotrione + atrazine, tolpyralate + atrazine, and tembotrione + atrazine controlled waterhemp 87%, 94%, 97%, and 98% 12 WAA, respectively, and were all similar to the weed-free control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".