Review of <i>Weeds of the Midwestern United States & Central Canada,</i> edited by Charles T. Bryson and Michael S. DeFelice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume is the culmination of work by more than 40 weed scientists and botanists. Its stated purpose is to help identifY the great diversity of weedy and invasive plants that interface with agriculture, industry, and natural ecosystems in central North America. The geographic range covered by this book extends from southeastern Saskatchewan to eastern Kansas, northern Kentucky, northwestern Pennsylvania, and southwestern Quebec. This is a welcome edition because a current book on unwanted plants has not been available for the eastern two-thirds of this region. The book is arranged taxonomically by family and alphabetically by species within each family. Scientific nomenclature follows the accepted names specified by the Weed Science Society of America rather than the most current taxonomic treatments. This treatment focuses on weed identification rather than management recommendations. The book covers the identification of about 350 species. A brief introduction is followed by a nine-page illustrated terminology depicting parts of a dicot stem, parts of a monocot collar, leaf shape and arrangement, flower parts, inflorescence types, root types, and stem types. A key to the families follows. The key is relatively simple, but a person using it will need some botanical knowledge. In my opinion, the key is not an important feature of the book.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".