Current state of noxious weed management in South Dakota
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An online survey was distributed to South Dakota stakeholders to understand how noxious weeds are currently being managed. The response rate was 26%; 129 stakeholders completed the survey of the 491 stakeholders who opened the survey. Eighty percent of respondents stated noxious weeds were a problem. Canada thistle [ Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.], leafy spurge ( Euphorbia esula L.), and absinth wormwood ( Artemisia absinthium L.) were the most common and troublesome, but all statewide noxious weeds were reported. The most common singular response to manage noxious weeds was herbicides alone (25%), but respondents utilized two (27%) to three (24%) other tactics as well. Most respondents (47%) were somewhat satisfied with management tactics, while others were completely satisfied (9%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (20%), somewhat unsatisfied (11%), or very unsatisfied (15%). A covariate analysis showed that the more management tactics individual stakeholders utilized, the less satisfied they were with control (P < 0.0001). The most common barrier of adopting new tactics was effectiveness (26%) followed by a combination of effectiveness + current production practices + cost + labor (13%). An additional covariate analysis showed that the increase in management tactics increased the barriers of adoption (P = 0.04) and increasing the number of barriers of adoption resulted in stakeholders being dissatisfied with control (P = 0.0003). Overall, the results of the survey suggest that statewide noxious weeds remain a problem, and multiple tactics are used to manage these weeds. However, Cooperative extension efforts need to address how to use current management and implement new management strategies to increase effectiveness.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".