MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1602507114

맥주보리 품질평가 현황과 전망

2002· article· ko· W1602507114 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
손영구, 서세정, 백성범, 이춘우, 박문웅, 한상익

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Korean Journal of Crop Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Soil, Plant Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessQuality (philosophy)AgronomyAgricultural engineeringBiotechnologyBiologyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With lower quality and three to four times higher price than those of imported malting barley, the competitiveness of domestic malting barley is decreasing. Although the causes can be found in that the domestic environments are much unfavorable to cultivate the malting barley compared with those of USA or Canada, it is mainly reasoned from poorer developments in variety of high quality malting barley as well as in cultivation technology. For assuring the competitiveness of domestic malting barley, therefore, not only the development of high quality malting barley suitable to the climatic environment of this country but also the political supports of the government are required. Also, in addition to the breeding of the good quality malting barley haying higher germinative energy, and heavier and larger kernels of good plumpness as well as lower protein content, the modification of quality inspection standards from the system relying only on the visual characteristics such as kernel size distribution rate, shrimped kernel rate, foreign materials and so on, to such system as those of developed countries haying quality criteria such as protein content for inspection is absolutely required for the quality improvement of domestic malting barley.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.024

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Korean Journal of Crop ScienceSame topicAgriculture, Soil, Plant ScienceFrench-language works237,207