MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034812927

Weeds and ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as influenced by crop rotation type and crop input management

2001· other· en· W7034812927 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2001
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeedGround beetleMonocroppingCrop rotationCropWeed controlCropping
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Weeds and ground beetles are bioindicators of cropping system sustainability. In 1992, a study was initiated near Winnipeg to determine how cropping system diversity and input use affect populations of weeds and ground beetles, and the association between weed and ground beetle populations. Three, four-year rotations (rotation 1 = annual crops only; rotation 2 = annuals plus one green manure crop; rotation 3 = annuals plus two year alfalfa hay crop) were subdivided into four subplots based on fertilizer (f) and herbicide (h) use (all four combinations: f+h+, f+h-, f-h+, f-h- in each rotation type). A prairie grass system was included in each of three replicates. A common test crop (flax ['Linum usitatissimum' L.]) was seeded in all plots at the end of each rotation cycle (1995; 1999). Plant growth, crop yield, weed and ground beetle diversity weed populations and ground beetle activity, were assessed each year and subjected to univariate analysis. Weed populations and ground beetle activity for 1995 to 1999 were analyzed using multivariate redundancy analysis (RDA). (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.147
Teacher spread0.144 · 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207