Simulation Models on the Ecology and Management of Arable Weeds: Structure, Quantitative Insights, and Applications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In weed science and management, models are important and can be used to better understand what has occurred in management scenarios, to predict what will happen and to evaluate the outcomes of control methods. To-date, perspectives on and the understanding of weed models have been disjointed, especially in terms of how they have been applied to advance weed science and management. This paper presents a general overview of the nature and application of a full range of simulation models on the ecology, biology, and management of arable weeds, and how they have been used to provide insights and directions for decision making when long-term weed population trajectories are impractical to be determined using field experimentation. While research on weed biology and ecology has gained momentum over the past four decades, especially for species with high risk for herbicide resistance evolution, knowledge gaps still exist for several life cycle parameters for many agriculturally important weed species. More research efforts should be invested in filling these knowledge gaps, which will lead to better models and ultimately better inform weed management decision making.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it