MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7017287178

Åkertistel : biologi och icke-kemisk bekämpning

2006· other· en· W7017287178 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEpsilon Archive for Student Projects (University of Southampton) · 2006
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThistleWeedBiosecurityCompetition (biology)Weed controlChemical control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing problem in Swedish herbicide free agriculture, the Canadian thistle has been the object of several new trials, seeking methods for non-chemical weed control. The new trials have mainly confirmed earlier experiences; that the most successful methods of control are springtime ploughing, repeated cutting and competition from a stout crop. Row hoeing has also been proven effective. As opposed to earlier recommendations, half season fallow has shown to be a risky and often ineffective method of control. Trials regarding biological methods have shown that above others thistle rust (Puccinia punctiformis) may have the potential of controlling Canadian thistle the future.

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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2250.113

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpsilon Archive for Student Projects (University of Southampton)French-language works237,207