Comparison of organic and conventional selection environments for spring wheat
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With 1 figure and 8 tables Abstract An important research question is whether wheat cultivars for organic production should be selected under organic field conditions. Yield, protein content and kernel weight (KWT) of seven populations of wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) selected in both organic and conventional growing conditions (termed selection environments) were compared at four organically and four conventionally managed sites (termed management environments). Selection environment was found to affect yield, protein and KWT in both management environments. At most sites, populations selected in organic environments had higher yields at organically managed sites relative to conventionally selected populations. When organically managed site‐years were combined, the yields of organically selected populations were significantly higher than those of conventionally selected populations. Populations selected under organic management had higher protein content and KWT under both management environments. Direct selection in organically managed field conditions for genotypes targeted to organic agriculture offers advantages over indirect selection in conventionally managed field conditions.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it