MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991102802

Exploring the role of the R: FR ratio in Glycine max. L. Merril (soybean) -weed competition

2010· dissertation· en· W6991102802 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCompetition (biology)WeedGrowing seasonInterspecific competitionBiomass (ecology)LimitingGlycinePhenology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crop-weed competition is the result of processes driven by both resource and non-resource limitations. In this study, we explore the role of non-resource limiting competition, specifically the low R: FR ratio reflected from a surrogate weedy competitor in determining the onset and outcome of soybean-weed competition. Growth cabinet and field studies were designed to eliminate direct competition for resources. We measured the reflected R: FR ratio from a surrogate weedy competitor on the morphology and phenology of soybean. Results indicated that the low R: FR ratio caused soybean seedlings to express shade avoidance, which resulted in reductions to the rate of leaf appearance and biomass accumulation. In the growth cabinet, these reductions defined a critical period for weed control that occurred from the V1 to V3 stage of soybean development. In the field, early shade avoidance reduced soybean yield. These results provide further understanding in the potential role of the R: FR ratio as a mechanism explaining early season soybean-weed competition.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207