MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099295115

7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Report No.

2007· article· en· W7099295115 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoxious weedThistleMatching (statistics)Weed controlResamplingSample (material)Weed
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By law, Departments of Transportation are required to control noxious weeds along highway rights-of-way (ROWs). Since 2000, District 4 (D4) of Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) adopted a survey design consisting of n = 7, 3-mi segments to quantify infestations of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense (L.)(Scop.), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) in chosen regions of the district. In 2004 and 2005, a second survey design was added to see if stratification by ecozone in D4, and greater numbers of 1/4-mi segments could improve precision. Comparison of matching sample statistics from the 3-mi and 1/4-mi plans in each year indicated the two plans yielded equivalent estimates of mean acres per roadway mile of each weed (α = 0.05). However, precision at the district level was much greater in all cases with the 1/4-mi plan. In addition, weed abundances varied substantially among ecozones (α < 0.05); this knowledge will allow managers to direct control efforts to problem areas. Finally, a combination of computer based mapping and resampling of the 1/4-mi segments observed in the two years suggests that additional improvements in precision and efficiency are likely to occur if segment lengths are shortened to 125 ’ or less. Shorter segments would reduce inspection costs, increase sample sizes, improve precision, and possibly allow conversion from an area-measurement approach to

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.226 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207