MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099252864

workshop: executive summary

2002· article· en· W7099252864 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgroforestry and silvopastoral systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlyphosateVegetation (pathology)UngulateAerial surveyTaigaAerial applicationJuniperForageSilviculture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A program was initiated in the spring of 1985 to study the direct effects of aerial application of the herbicide glyphosate on target and non-target vegetation in the boreal forest region of southeastern Manitoba. During the last decade glyphosate has been used increasingly in silviculture practices in Manitoba and Canada. Eleven study sites were monitored from 1985 to 1994 to assess the effects of various rates of glyphosate applications on the vegetation of forest ecosystems. Control (unsprayed) and treated (sprayed) sampling sites were established in two recently burned areas, a mature aspen stand, a forest plantation, and an area where an accidental spill of glyphosate had occurred in the past. A separate study was established to specifically address the effects of glyphosate on available ungulate browse material. Data on the available browse from six forage species were collected from the control and treated bum and aspen stand areas. Results from vegetation monitoring differed from site to site. The vegetation of one site in the treated aspen stand showed little evidence of adverse effects following glyphosate application when applied at a rate of 2.5 lIha in 1985 and in 1986. This was likely due to poor

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgroforestry and silvopastoral systemsFrench-language works237,207