MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402321267 · doi:10.5376/mgg.2024.15.0007

The Impact of Genetic Engineering on Maize Herbicide Tolerance

2024· article· en· W4402321267 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiayi Wu, Qian Li

Bibliographic record

VenueMaize Genomics and Genetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCrop Yield and Soil Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgronomyBiotechnologyBiologyAgroforestryAgricultural engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adoption of genetically engineered maize for herbicide tolerance has significantly impacted agricultural practices, particularly in weed management. This study examines the development, implementation, and consequences of herbicide-tolerant maize varieties. The introduction of transgenic maize expressing genes such as dicamba monooxygenase (DMO) and CP4-EPSPS has enabled higher tolerance levels to herbicides like dicamba and glyphosate, respectively, leading to improved weed control and reduced crop injury. However, the widespread use of these genetically modified (GM) crops has also led to the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, necessitating the development of dual herbicide-tolerant varieties and new herbicide tolerance traits. Meta-analyses and field studies indicate that while GM crops have reduced overall pesticide use and increased crop yields and farmer profits, the long-term sustainability of these benefits is challenged by evolving weed resistance. This study synthesizes findings from multiple studies to provide a comprehensive understanding of the agronomic, economic, and environmental impacts of herbicide-tolerant maize, highlighting both the advantages and the ongoing challenges in this field.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaize Genomics and GeneticsSame topicCrop Yield and Soil FertilityFrench-language works237,207