Choline/Glyphosate DMA for Their Efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA formulation has reduced drift and volatility compared to the amine or ester formulation of 2,4-D and therefore is advantageous compared to a tank mix of 2,4-D amine or ester with glyphosate. The objective of this research was to compare the control of glyphosate susceptible and glyphosate resistant Canada fleabane with 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA with 2,4-D amine, glyphosate, and a tank mix of 2,4-D amine and glyphosate. Ten rates of 2,4-D amine (0- 6708 g∙ae∙ha⁻), glyphosate (0- 7052 g∙ae∙ha⁻), a tank mix of glyphosate plus 2,4-D amine (0- 7052 g∙ae∙ha⁻ + 0- 6708), and 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA (0- 13760 g∙ae∙ha⁻) were examined in the greenhouse for the control of two susceptible (GS) and two resistant to gly-phosate (GR) Canada fleabane biotypes. The tank mix of 2,4-D amine plus glyphosate and 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA provided equivalent control of the GR Canada fleabane biotypes at 35 days after the application (DAA). The 2,4-D choline/glyphosate DMA treatment was more effica-cious than the tank mix on the GS biotypes. Glyphosate (880 g∙ae∙ha⁻) provided 50 % and 100%
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".