MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099552916

HERBICIDE%PROTECTING LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY AND WATER QUALITY

2014· article· en· W7099552916 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedSustainabilityWater qualityVegetation (pathology)Leaching (pedology)Hydrology (agriculture)Organic matterEcosystem
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

World-wide, sediment is the major water quality problem. The use of herbicides for controllingcompeting vegetation during stand establishment can be benci ic ial to forest ecosystem sustainability and water quality by minimising off-site soil loss, reducing on-site soil and organic matter displacement, and preventing deterioration of soil physical properties. Sediment losses from sites where competing vegetation is controlled by mechanical methods can be I to 2 orders of magnitude greater than natoral Iosscs from undisturbed watersheds. On a watershed basis, vegetation management techniques in general incrcaseannualerosion by<7%. Hcrbicidesdonotincreasenaturalcrosio~~rates. Organic matter and nutrients that are critical to long-term site productivity can be removed off-site by mechanical vegetat ion-managcmcnt techniques and fix, or redistributed on-site in a manner that rcduccs availability to the next stand. For several decades, research has been conducted on the fate of forcitry-use herbicides in various watersheds throughout the southern and western l lni tcd Stntcs, Canada, andAustrnlia.‘fhisrcscarch hasevaluatedchemicalssuch as2,4-D,glyphosate, hexazinone,imarapyr,mctsulfuronmethy:,picloram,sulfometuronmethyl,tebuthiuron, and triclopyr. Losses in strcamflow, and leaching to groundwater have been evaluated.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistory of Science and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207