MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201672231 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2021-0169

Rapid increase in glyphosate resistance and confirmation of dicamba-resistant kochia (<i>Bassia scoparia</i>) in Manitoba

2021· article· en· W3201672231 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Charles M. Geddes, Mattea M. Pittman, Robert H. Gulden, Tammy Jones, Julia Y. Leeson, Shaun M. Sharpe, Scott W. Shirriff, Hugh J. Beckie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAlberta Wheat CommissionSaskatchewan Canola Development CommissionWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsDicambaGlyphosateScopariaAgronomyBiologyGlufosinateResistance (ecology)Herbicide resistanceWeedWeed control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased adoption of crops with stacked traits conferring glyphosate and dicamba resistance, and recent confirmation of kochia [Bassia scoparia (L.) A.J. Scott] biotypes resistant to these herbicides in Alberta and Saskatchewan, warrant surveillance of herbicide-resistant kochia in Manitoba. A randomized–stratified survey of 315 sites in Manitoba was conducted in the fall of 2018. Overall, 58% of the kochia populations tested were glyphosate-resistant, while 1% were dicamba-resistant. This survey documents rapid increase in glyphosate-resistant kochia over a five-year time frame, and also confirms the first cases of kochia in Manitoba with dicamba resistance alone and in combination with glyphosate 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207