Survey of herbicide-resistant wild oat (Avena fatua L.) in two townships in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine the nature and occurrence of herbicide resistance in wild oat in the Grassland and Parkland regions of Saskatchewan in 1997, based on a systematic survey of fields in two randomly selected townships. The survey found that: 1) over one-half of fields in both townships had populations resistant to Group 1, 2, and/or 8 herbicides; 2) fields in the Parkland township had higher mean levels of Group 1 resistance (% resistant seeds) than fields in the Grassland township, suggesting they were subjected to more Group-1 herbicide applications; and 3) single- (Groups 1, 2, or 8) and multiple-group resistance (1,2; 1,8; 2,8; 1,2,8) were exhibited in populations in fields in both townships. The proportion of fields with populations exhibiting Group 1 (single) resistance was higher, and Group 2 and Groups 1,2 resistance were lower in the Parkland compared to that in the Grassland township. In both townships, farmers with more land (within the township or total farmed) tended to have a greater proportion of that land infested with Group 1- or 2-resistant wild oat compared to those with less land. The nature of resistance in wild oat populations in Saskatchewan is more diverse, differences in distribution and abundance of resistant biotypes between Grassland and Parkland regions are generally less apparent, and occurrence of resistance is more prevalent than previously documented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".